# The French... piracy over privacy?



## PolarBear (May 17, 2009)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/techn ... nce&st=cse

Bottom line: all the authorities have to control your internet traffic for illegal downloads. Is that really what we want? The loss of all privacy in order to get piracy by law and order?


----------



## choc0thrax (May 17, 2009)

I think Wolverine's 80 something million opening box office shows piracy doesn't affect movies too much.

Cutting off peoples internet would seem tough to do. What happens if you live with three roommates and one of you gets in trouble for downloading something, you'd all lose internet access I guess?


----------



## Niah (May 17, 2009)

what do we need privacy for??

I'm ready to give away all my rights and freedoms to fight this international calamity that is internet piracy, mr Sarkozy


finally some control in this lawless europe, we needed something like the patriot act to fight these terrorists


now back to finish downloading carla bruni's full discography


----------



## lux (May 17, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Sun May 17 said:


> I think Wolverine's 80 something million opening box office shows piracy doesn't affect movies too much.
> 
> Cutting off peoples internet would seem tough to do. What happens if you live with three roommates and one of you gets in trouble for downloading something, you'd all lose internet access I guess?



I somehow believe it affects music though. Of course it doesnt have anything to do with the f***ckin crazy prices physical delivered albums have, thats just pure insanity


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 17, 2009)

I support France 100% on this law. I think most people would support the law if it was the only way to stop rape and murder. When it is the only way to stop the "murder" on creative artists around the world people think differently. Why? Would the world be better without professional artists and creators of IP?

It is a human right to live off your work and to own your intellectual property and not have it taken from you, just as you have rights to your physical property, according to the European Union's constitution. Surfing anonymously on the Internet is not a human right or a necessity for anyone. The law will make it possible to turn off the Internet for someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material.


----------



## johncarter (May 18, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sun May 17 said:


> I support France 100% on this law. I think most people would support the law if it was the only way to stop rape and murder. When it is the only way to stop the "murder" on creative artists around the world people think differently. Why? Would the world be better without professional artists and creators of IP?
> 
> It is a human right to live off your work and to own your intellectual property and not have it taken from you, just as you have rights to your physical property, according to the European Union's constitution. Surfing anonymously on the Internet is not a human right or a necessity for anyone. The law will make it possible to turn off the Internet for someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material.




In theory, it's a good law for artists.
In practice, it's not technically possible ... for the reason I mentionned in my post.
Do you want to cut internet connection to innocent ?
Do you want to force internet users to install an "official government spyware" to prove you're not a downloader ? Because thats what they want to do


----------



## JB78 (May 18, 2009)

I'm against it for the same reasons as JohnCarter stated.

I think the whole entertainment industry will be better off spending money on solutions instead of hunting people down.

Spotify is a great example of such solutions, it's the best 12 dollars a month I've ever spent. I'm just waiting for something similiar for movies/tv-shows here in Sweden. 

The thing the industry has to understand is that you cannot charge the same prices for something that can be duplicated as many times as you want at no loss of quality and to no cost except storage. I could somewhat understand the prices on Lp's, cd's and other physical media before everthing went digital, it had to be manufactured and shipped all over the world, take up space in stores etc... Now the market will have to adapt as well and lower the prices or better yet find some kind of subscription options. 

Could you imagine people paying 100 000 $ for a BMW if everyone with a computer could duplicate it for free?


Best regards
Jon


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

JB78 @ Mon May 18 said:


> I'm against it for the same reasons as JohnCarter stated.
> 
> I think the whole entertainment industry will be better off spending money on solutions instead of hunting people down.
> 
> ...


It appears odd to me that anyone in a forum for aspiring composers would deny the right to copyright of your creation. It is the only way intellectual property can provide a living wage for the creator. Why would anyone want to deny those who produce the things that makes us human their right to a living? Composers, writers, photographers, sound recorders, film makers, software developers, musicians, poets, visual artists - These are the people that are denied pay for their work. Illegal filesharing sabotages the balance between supply and demand by saturating the market with an infinite number of free illegal copies of their works.

Proponents for illegal filesharing do not realize that in the end they are not only cheating the people they steal from. They are also cheating themselves out of every creation and artist "killed" by their file sharing.


----------



## JB78 (May 18, 2009)

Hans, where in my post does it say that I'm FOR illegal filesharing?

Of course I'm not for it, like you said it would be like stabbing myself in the back.

That said I don't think the solution is to hunt people down, but instead find better ways of distributing media that will make people WANT to pay for it.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

JB78 @ Mon May 18 said:


> Hans, where in my post does it say that I'm FOR illegal filesharing?
> 
> Of course I'm not for it, like you said it would be like stabbing myself in the back.
> 
> That said I don't think the solution is to hunt people down, but instead find better ways of distributing media that will make people WANT to pay for it.


Well, I wish I had the resources to do what you say the bigger coòÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8	ÿï   ¡8
ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8 ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï   ¡8ÿï


----------



## Angel (May 18, 2009)

I vote for policemen escorting every single person in the world. No crime anymore. Brave new world!


----------



## wqaxsz (May 18, 2009)

Hi,

talking about respecting the law and artists' rights:

I hope you all know that the french political party ump 
(ump stands for "unity of mediocre politicians" i think) 
responsible for this law used a song from a band
without their assent for one of their campaign, for videos
and for the website of the party.

After the band notify them "the ump" only wanted to pay one symbolic euro.

I guess that dwarf of emperor is a good example for people. 

lOrenzO


----------



## wqaxsz (May 18, 2009)

Angel @ Mon May 18 said:


> I vote for policemen escorting every single person in the world. No crime anymore. Brave new world!



Yes but you need another person for each policeman and another one for the one spying or glued to the policeman and so on..


----------



## Angel (May 18, 2009)

no more unemployment then


----------



## PolarBear (May 18, 2009)

Hans, you have to look at things from the a broader standpoint I think. The question here is not to support filesharing or not, the question here should be what you give up for what you get.

The trade-in with this law here is, that in order to actually catch a guy downloading some warez stuff you have in fact to open all his traffic, look at it, approve it or deny it. Now here is the problem... if the user is using encrypted connections (not even the need to use, fake or abuse other peoples' IP) you simply can't control anything anymore. Even if that could be circumvented again by a law that no encryption for internet usage is allowed anymore (and I don't see how that ever could get approved without a riot) and let's say they really could control all internet traffic (it would take the daily manpower of 3 guys to analyze the internet traffic I alone generate daily) and get all those illegal downloads banned from the www-internet - that doesn't stop piracy!

And that's the point I'm trying to make: With this law the government is getting an instrument to annul any secrecy of letters/internet traffic but they could not be successful in this category theoretically, let alone practically. No, this can't be the way.

As I said above. We condemn eastern nations that do these kind of things, we hold up bills saying "freedom of speech" but let happen this bullshit that will not be successful at all.

There are too many ways to get around it and once these things are taking actions the pirates are already a step further. Just that all the honest people who wouldn't have to fear a thing otherwise are now always suspects. That's a completely different view: You gotta prove that you didn't download, it's not that they gotta prove that *you* did download such a thing. It's the ultimate horror-vision of any data security engineer.

Imagine two cops (could be) following you every step outside *and* inside your house looking that you don't do anything wrong, and you can't even see yourself when they're there. Bwaahhh!


----------



## synthetic (May 18, 2009)

[raises hand] I'll give up privacy to help fight piracy. Though I'm not sure that's what they're really saying, I have nothing to hide on my online use. I don't pirate stuff, but if I did I would think twice about it if I knew there could be consequences. I know there are consequences if I steal gum at the corner store. 

Here's how to police it: anyone downloading stuff from a torrent is pirating music, movies or software. Oh, there's legal stuff there too? Give me a break. Aren't torrents on a different internet port than web use? 

#2, if someone uploads or downloads more than 500GB, they are moved up to commercial level pricing. "Joey, why is our internet bill $700 this month!?"


----------



## re-peat (May 18, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 18 said:


> Ilok is not available for sample libraries, as far as I know



Hans, it is: the UVI libraries are protected by iLok. Each library needs an seperate iLok license, the software in which to use these libraries on the other hand (the UVI Workstation), is free.

_


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

PolarBear @ Mon May 18 said:


> Hans, you have to look at things from the a broader standpoint I think. The question here is not to support filesharing or not, the question here should be what you give up for what you get.
> 
> The trade-in with this law here is, that in order to actually catch a guy downloading some warez stuff you have in fact to open all his traffic, look at it, approve it or deny it. Now here is the problem... if the user is using encrypted connections (not even the need to use, fake or abuse other peoples' IP) you simply can't control anything anymore. Even if that could be circumvented again by a law that no encryption for internet usage is allowed anymore (and I don't see how that ever could get approved without a riot) and let's say they really could control all internet traffic (it would take the daily manpower of 3 guys to analyze the internet traffic I alone generate daily) and get all those illegal downloads banned from the www-internet - that doesn't stop piracy!
> 
> ...


In the wider perspective, we lose the creative professionals of the world if we don't deal with Internet piracy. The laws that make file-sharing a crime are already in existence. Most countries in the world have signed the same international copyright treaties, and the laws within each country reflect this. Swedish law as well as German, and French law says that file-sharing is a crime, because it is a violation of the copyright of an individual. Where there is a crime there is a victim. The notion that piracy does not hurt anyone is a fantasy to ease the conscience and justify continued theft. Anyone that is dependent on their income from intellectual property can testify to this.

The problem in the situation today is that enforcement has been neglected by the lawmakers in many countries for so long. What we see today is a long due catch-up of providing tools for the enforcement of existing laws. Today we have websites offering virtually every copyrighted intellectual property ever produced for free. But these works were not "free" to produce. Someone put their life and career into producing each of these works. 

File-sharers hide behind the expression that the "industry" has to do this or that to adapt, or the "industry" is too greedy, or the "industry" charges too high prices for their products. The truth is that the creative people that are deprived of their income are regular people that have chosen a line of work that mostly pays less than average. For some reason the laws of supply and demand are no longer supposed to set the price on intellectual property - pirating teens are to determine how much anyone should pay for their consumption.

The laws that are now formed in France and in Sweden only provide means for a copyright holder to identify the person behind an IP address if the IP address is caught downloading illegal files from torrents. Without knowing who owns an IP address it is impossible to determine the main perpetrator of the crime. Because of the way current laws are written in Sweden, and other European countries, the website providing the link to the illegal torrent can only be considered to be a facilitator of the crime. Up until today, it has been considered impossible to convict either, because without identifying the perpetrator you cannot establish that a crime has been committed, and there is no grounds for convicting the website that provided the link to the torrent with the copyrighted material. The owners of these websites has snubbed the police, justice system, and the legal copyright holders for many years, hiding behind this. 

To finally make it possible to control the devastating illegal file-sharing, France and Sweden are moving to close this loop-hole. If the perpetrator of the crime no longer can hide behind the anonymity of an IP address when his IP address is identified in repeated thefts. France have chosen the very mild remedy that someone who owns an IP address that participates in illegal file-sharing can lose the internet connection. 

In the bigger picture of the evil we are fighting here I think that is an insignificant, but justified remedy, that may prove very effective.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

This article describes the current situation very accurately: Copyright Critics Rationalize Theft


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

As a composer for film I couldn't care less about the Music Industry, I am not a part of it.

As a music lover and someone who has been involved in this Music bussiness before I have nothing but disrespect for Major Labels who own your work, and make money of it way more than you the creator. Not only Major Labels have taken control of the distribution of music, but music itself.
It makes no sense, it would be like newspapers owning the information they distribute. The information is free, and in this case, music should be owned by the creator and the Industry.

Make no mistake this is about the Major Music Labels, they have been at the forefront of these anti-piracy methods for quite some time now in europe. They couldn't care less about sample libs being shared, all they care is about their bussiness. And this is an agreedment between them and the ISP's.

Instead of trying to find out why people suddenly find downloading mp3's more attractive than buying Psysical CD's these Major Labels continue to insist on a bussiness model that is absolute. They continue to treat their costumers as criminals and amoral people. Theythink that they are loosing money because of piracy and that these laws and restrictions are going to save them. Not only these laws and restrictions will not stop piracy but it will increase piracy activity and make it even more sophisticated.

Piracy is not going to be ceased by more laws or restrictions, you fight it by making the product more attractive to consumers.

People that were behind the creation of iTunes and other guizmos saw this whole file sharing deal not as a threat but as a bussiness opportunity. They saw this as the future of the music bussiness instead of seeing it as a calamity. 

These Major Labels don't want to change and are still convinced that people will always buy an expensive CD when they only like two or three songs in it. 

File sharing, ITunes and other internet bussiness models have changes things and opened up the doors for independet musicians to distribute their work over the internet without having to sucumb the tentacles of the Majors who once controlled all of music's distribution. There's nothing like buying mp3's or an album of these indie artists and knowing that most of it if not all goes to their pocket.

A new culture of downloading and listening to music was spawned by file sharing and the people who turned that culture into a business are the ones who are wining now.

As a citizen I am horrified by these laws who are set to take away basic freedoms and control us in the name of bussiness. And this law goes so well with conservative Sarkozy's agenda.

This law goes way beyond piracy...

This is how our society deals with its problems, like for instance crime. More control, more security, more police, more cameras. We tolerate all this in the name of security and don't realise that these methods simply don't stop or prevent crime. You can only stop crime when you eliminate the conditions that make people commit crime. If you have more social justice and equal opportunities then you eliminate criminal activity.

But this not in any government's agenda, it's about maintaining the social hierarchy, they on the top and we on the bottom.

This is about a side of the music business who doesn't know how to compete with things like iTunes and making a parternship with a conservative government who wants have a controled society.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

Niah @ Mon May 18 said:


> As a composer for film I couldn't care less about the Music Industry, I am not a part of it.
> 
> As a music lover and someone who has been involved in this Music bussiness before I have nothing but disrespect for Major Labels who own your work, and make money of it way more than you the creator. Not only Major Labels have taken control of the distribution of music, but music itself.
> It makes no sense, it would be like newspapers owning the information they distribute. The information is free, and in this case, music should be owned by the creator and the Industry.
> ...


Niah,
If you don't like to pay the cost of a CD, buy a radio and turn in some station you like. You could also download any of the music given away for free by its aspiring artist/composer on the Internet. That is not illegal, and you would please the person posting it.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

Niah @ Mon May 18 said:


> If you have more social justice and equal opportunities then you eliminate criminal activity.


I agree with this general statement, but it does not apply to illegal file sharing and copyright violations. I think most would agree that Sweden is a society of the highest degree of egalitarianism and equal opportunities. At the same time it is the stronghold for illegal file-sharing in the world. In Sweden everyone gets free health care, free college education, and a comfortable guaranteed living standard. Still, the younger generation now also demands free music, free Hollywood movies, free software, free everything that is intellectual property. It has nothing to do with social injustice.


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

Hans,

I don't know where did I mention in my post that I didn't like to buy a CD. I was not talking about me since I don't listen to music distributed by the Majors.

Nevertheless since you mentioned it I will buy music from any artist that I like in any format that he or she offers it, either it be it mp3, CD, or vinyl (my favourite), I don't care, if it's good I'll buy it.

Most of the artists I listen to, have their work in mp3 and CD, and sometimes in vinyl too. You make it sound like the only option to buy someone's work is to buy a CD.

What I was trying to say was that there is big difference between buying a CD from a Major and a smaller or independent artist release.


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

And I just want to say that I don't think that nobody is right or wrong here. 

I simply think that this is not the way to fight piracy and that it will not lead to good results, and in my view there's a clear political agenda behind it, that has very little to do with copyrights.

But even if there wasn't, there's such certain values that I raise high, particulary privacy and internet privacy that I am not about to give away for some suspicious government law. This law is about giving too much power and that scares me.


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 18 said:


> Niah @ Mon May 18 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have more social justice and equal opportunities then you eliminate criminal activity.
> ...



oh absolutely, but I mentioned crime as an example to how we fight these issues.

We don't try to prevent crime and we don't try to prevent piracy.

It is about trying to understand why people share files and make the product more attractive and more akin consumer's needs,

I don't believe that people just want everything for free. As an example I sometimes release some of my non-film work for free and people ask me all the time where they can get my CD because they want to buy it. Fans want and always will support the artists.

In my country there are no anti piracy laws that I know of, but most of the the people know it's wrong and they will tell you that. You know why? Because there was a huge campaign about this issue so it's also about education. Most people didn't even kniow this was wrong before !

So to me there's much more effective ways to deal with this,.

But if you treat people like criminals they will behave as such.


----------



## Jaap (May 18, 2009)

I think it is a good thing the French are doing. Scare people, make them aware that you are doing illegal stuff and so far this is the first big step I see that could actually get more then a few people. Bringing them to court will not work, creating cases against sites also seems to be tricky and I think with this you finally warn people.

You will think twice if you know you will be cutt off the internet completely because of some downloads. Scare the masses and make them aware of what they are doing. Of course some smart people will know how to work around this and yes also a few innocent people will be cut off maybe, but you can't cover anything I am affraid.

I see no concerns about the whole privacy issue. It maybe monitored, but they can't do anything with it beside analysing the data for the results they are looking for. They cant publish your browsing behaviour, sell it to whomever etc etc. I would be more concerned about google then then this law to be honest, heck if I type now Obama, bomb, Iran, Iraq, Korea and war I am probably sacrafising already more privacy because of some obscure keyword monitoring then with this law.

I am happy with this stepp (and I am moving to France in a few years again so I will have to live with this law) and no I am no saint either on the internet, but it is just too damn easy to grab free stuff on the internet.


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

Jaap,

You make some valid points, unfortunately "scaring the masses" doesn't have a long-term effect in my opinion.

"Scaring the masses" is what the industry has been doing all this time.

This law is more of the same and if it works it won't be for long, people will find a way around it like with everything. And will not just be a few...

There needs to be awareness and people need to understand the consequences of their actions. There's still alot of mystery about how the Music Industry works among the general public and how these actions can affect the Major business. 

Still I think you guys are failing to see that this law is trying to favor a certain side of the business -Which is the Majors.


----------



## Thonex (May 18, 2009)

What if there was some Internet log, that would log the name of every file transferred over the net and keep that log for a period of 5 years. Heh... Google is probably already doing this. This way... if you suspect a group of people are downloading a certain cracked file, then you could get proof for your case. 

I'm guessing if your downloads would leave a record for 5 years, one might not pirate as much... knowing that you could be exposed over the course of 5 years.

My 2 cents.

AK


----------



## artsoundz (May 18, 2009)

That would be reasonable to consider if it were just specifically for software. But the broader privacy issue is the scariest of slippery slopes.

Didnt prosecuting the few and imposing major fines work here in the U.S.? It seems that when the majors did this it sent an effective message.

(this was in the last couple of years and I refer specifically to downloading music)


----------



## PolarBear (May 18, 2009)

For the record: I'm not saying piracy is a good thing or intellectual property shouldn't be protected.

The methods here are questionable. This law effectively means that every citizen firstly is a suspect, secondly if he just got that IP (IPv4 is getting short already, in a country where IP changes everytime you turn on the internet that is a factor!) he's already convinced of crime without any further checks! Actually there is no way you can prove your innocence, the same way there is no way to prove your guilt.

The general consensus in laws thus far was "in dubio pro reo" (benefit of the doubt) - the laws propsed are a complete shift of that basic law principle.

Now these laws are not for *protecting* intellectual property, they can not hinder it itself, they could only be applied when the action has already taken place. The difference here is, that once you got an internet connection, you are already a suspect with one foot in the "three-strike"-system.

There are many people sharing the same IP on the web (surfing in the same WLAN or office e.g.) unless you monitor at the gateway what each PC behind it receives from the internet there is no way to identify a specific PC (let alone person that was using this PC at that exact time) from the outside (government control) - so it could as well be that let's say the whole INTEL corp. will get cut off from the net because some of their staff were involved in a download theft.

Once again: They can only prove some grey area to anybody, yet they get complete control over any information you send to the internet, this is way more detailed and interesting than you might think. Of course they are not interested in your love letters or whatelse. But these laws practically circumvent any court and make you a *criminal* (!!) - plus you and your case not ever having seen a court (!!!). This is the broader picture and I hope you feel very very comfortable being watched how you eat your supper.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 18, 2009)

I just want to add that I have the highest respect for Polarbear, Niah, and everyone on this forum. You are the good people in this equation. The problem is the world outside of vi control. Unfortunately we have different point of view on these measures depending on where we come from in this debate. 8)


----------



## PolarBear (May 18, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 18 said:


> In the bigger picture of the evil we are fighting here I think that is an insignificant, but justified remedy, that may prove very effective.


Let me stress that I also have the highest respect for you (I'm sure you know that)  and every artist out there trying to make a living out of his art, yet I tend to disagree with your standpoints because I also know the world outside from VI control... and I really was like :shock: :shock: :shock: in front of my screen when I saw your statement that these laws would mean an "insignficant" step into the privacy rights...


----------



## Niah (May 18, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Tue May 19 said:


> I just want to add that I have the highest respect for Polarbear, Niah, and everyone on this forum. You are the good people in this equation. The problem is the world outside of vi control. Unfortunately we have different point of view on these measures depending on where we come from in this debate. 8)



Hans,

+1

My respect for your and your opinions is mutual and in a way I subscribe to what you are saying here. It's about where we are coming from, our experiences, etc, all comes into play and it's all valid opinions.

Also what Polar said, I don't support piracy at all and I know that you didn't intended to imply that. 

bottomline this law is a very controversial issue and very politically charged in my opinion, maybe I am taking it too politcal...perhaps...

only time will tell what the real motivations are here, I hope they are good though ... 8)


----------



## johncarter (May 19, 2009)

PolarBear @ Mon May 18 said:


> The methods here are questionable. This law effectively means that every citizen firstly is a suspect, secondly if he just got that IP (IPv4 is getting short already, in a country where IP changes everytime you turn on the internet that is a factor!) he's already convinced of crime without any further checks! Actually there is no way you can prove your innocence, the same way there is no way to prove your guilt.



Actually you can "prove" your innocence... with an hilarious solution : you need to install an official spyware made by the government. Can you believe this ? Its a step backward 

First, the problem is we dont know at all how they're going to develop this. Second, it will be cracked in one day considering how many internet geeks are against this law !


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2009)

Don't you get a warning for downloading that cracked version? :D

Seriously again: Niah, I understand that the major studios have a big finger in this whole production, but look from it from another perspective.
Now nobody benefits from the illegal downloads, though I know the arguments like, "I will buy it anyway, it made me discover artists that I would normally never have" etc.
The whole fight against how major studios work should be fought differently. Illegal activities is not the way to fight them and I know all people who stated here that they are against this law are also against piracy, but in my opinion we mix a few different issues

1: piracy - we all agree that its not acceptable
2: privacy - we are concerned about what we have to sacrafise if this law goes live
3: major studios - they take shitloads of money from customers and artists and we feel thats not correct and also the audience is not always preparing to pay that amount of money for a product

With this new law all 3 aspects could be covered, but I think we have to look at them seperate and think seperate about them. 

1: the piracy issue - just looking at this solution without taking privacy etc in mind, this could really work and stop a big chunk of the illegal downloads.

2: privacy - if you have nothing to hide, why be affraid? Are we also against police patroling on the streets? In an ideal world it wouldn't be needed, but we created a world and screwed up and now it's unfortunately needed. If we aint doing anything illegal, why be concerned? As said in my previous post, I think there are far more dangerous sites out there gathering information, beside that the EU will monitor this law as well and make sure that the government doesn't do anything "illegal" with the gathered info.

3: major publishers: ok, they benefit from it, back to the old way again and getting richer. This should be dealt with different, maybe they use this law to benefit, but its their right. Artists signed deals with them, knowing how big their influence would be. If we don't agree, don't sign or don't buy any products from them.
It is their legal right to benefit from it, whether we like it or not, we made them big, we let them run over us.
Actually this law could benifit this fight as well. Now we are only "screwed" one way, only by the publishers and its easier to take counteractions. Step up, leave them, don't buy stuff from them. Then they will feel it in their pocket without able to blame piracy and that would make them in the long long long term reconsider maybe there setups.


----------



## Angel (May 19, 2009)

ok, I will give a key to my house to the government. I've got nothing to hide


----------



## Markus S (May 19, 2009)

Hi guys,

Living myself in France, I follow this very closely. Here are some points to consider :

-- if you are accused of piracy, it is up to you to prove you are innocent. You can only "attack" in court, once your Internet access is cut off. So the "innocent untill proven guilty" is not valued anymore.

-- even though a "punishment" is pronounced, this law excludes traditional courts and the opinion of a judge. Therefor is installed an obscure administration (The hadopi). Even the European Parliament has pronounced itself against this kind of "authority".

-- there are many ways to "pirate" an Internet connection or steal an IP adress. Courts have not accepted an IP address as prove for an identity. So the probability of errors and abuse is very high.

-- so if you are a family with 5 persons, and your 13 year old kid downloads illegally music, all the family will be "punished". And even if your connection was pirated via wifi by a third person, you can loose your right to have an Internet connection, it is your fault.

-- the privacy protection is not guaranteed anymore, and there will be a "blacklist" of persons that "download illegally". These are processes that have been used to track down international terrorists.

-- there will be a software, supposed to "control" your Internet activity, that you have to pay and install yourself, in order to "prove" your innocence. This program does not even exist yet.

-- the application of the law is very expensive for the tax payer (70 million €), and will most probably, not bring any money to the artists. There are already many ways to avoid hadopi if you want to pirate.

-- the Internet access will be guaranteed "fundamental human right" in todays society by the European Parliament.
_
"The EU's constitution stipulates that Internet access is a fundamental human right. As it stands, the three strikes are really just accusations: There's no significant burden to prove that the accused party is indeed file-sharing, and there's no appeals process available for the accused. No judges no cease, said the EU, which last week refused a "compromise" offered by the French. And thus France girds itself for a human rights battle."_

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/ ... nsane.html

I do not use pirated software, I do not download pirated music, but this is a very dangerous law that undermines fundamental rights, and personal freedom on the Internet.

If a composer or any other small enterprise gets accused by this by error and gets their Internet connection cut for 12 months, they may as well quit the country to go on working. 

It might just be the beginning, though, there is already a law in preparation that will attack the use of VPN servers and crypted messages, used by many, many enterprises legally today.

I am a composer, too, yes we want to protect our music, but not at any price.


----------



## Angel (May 19, 2009)

word!


----------



## CFDG (May 19, 2009)

HADOPI law will be applied around 2011, Napoleon IV is out may 2012. Maths done.


----------



## PolarBear (May 19, 2009)

Markus S @ Tue May 19 said:


> It might just be the beginning, though, there is already a law in preparation that will attack the use of VPN servers and crypted messages, used by many, many enterprises legally today.


...for protection of their intellectual property from *any* other eyes btw.

I'll come back later today as I think we also have to talk a bit about how illegal downloads can, could or will be identified as such. While all of us deal with the internet quite often there may still be some lack of info here for some...


----------



## Markus S (May 19, 2009)

*Loppsi 2 -- "If this is true, it almost makes the HADOPI, or three strikes law, seem like nothing."*

The only english article I found about it :

_ Dadvsi and Hadopi supposed fight against illegal downloading with technical measures, should be completed in autumn 2009 by a far more ambitious, focusing on all the crime. Loppsi 2 (law and planning for the performance of Homeland Security, 2nd named after Lops, 2002), commissioned by Nicolas Sarkozy, would have a budget of one billion euros over five years (2010-2015).

The key to Loppsi 2, the cookies. The Hadopi law already provides for the simplification of procedures by the state services software incorporating technical measures remote control functionality or access to personal data. ” Also refers to the Dadvsi cookies: Article 10bis Additional C to Article 15 enables the central management of security of information systems (DCSSI) to escape the control of software bugs that could be installed by government departments, local authorities and public or private operators.

In other words, the state will no longer be obliged to verify the “legality” of the cookies used by its services on the network. Therefore, the door is open to all “broadcasts” information and sound of any kind. Bill Loppsi 2 incorporates this principle in the development, since it would “without consent, to access data, to observe, collect, record, store and transmit such that they appear to the user or as he introduces by entering characters. This is the legalization of “Trojans” (spyware) in the Internet, for a period of four months, renewable once by agreement of the judge.

Technically, the device may be implemented at any time, either by slipping in any physical location (with the establishment of a key connection in the computer monitor) or by transmission over a network electronic communications in remote infiltrating into the machine to monitor. _

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86252/new-french-loppsi-2-law-proposal-to-allow-police-to-upload-malware-to-file-sharers/ (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86252/new- ... e-sharers/)

I'm afraid they got it right, it is referring to this article : 

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/arti ... 51865.html


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

*Re: Loppsi 2 -- "If this is true, it almost makes the HADOPI, or three strikes law, seem like nothing."*



Markus S @ Tue May 19 said:


> The only english article I found about it :
> 
> _ Dadvsi and Hadopi supposed fight against illegal downloading with technical measures, should be completed in autumn 2009 by a far more ambitious, focusing on all the crime. Loppsi 2 (law and planning for the performance of Homeland Security, 2nd named after Lops, 2002), commissioned by Nicolas Sarkozy, would have a budget of one billion euros over five years (2010-2015).
> 
> ...


So the law is equivalent to the laws that allow courts in the US and other countries to issue an order of wiretapping when the court finds reason to believe a crime is committed. Wiretapping of this kind is used both in Sweden and the US at the moment. Not a big change in policy, just applying to another means of communication, if the article is correct. No one has objected to this before.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 19, 2009)

When my internet connection goes down I simply tether to my cell phone's internet connection so I can be back in business. And if something faster than cable comes along - which may be a while, because it's really fast - I'll switch to a different provider.

Is there in France anything to this prevent?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 19, 2009)

"I'm guessing if your downloads would leave a record for 5 years, one might not pirate as much... knowing that you could be exposed over the course of 5 years."

I'd have to set up a farm in my backyard if there were any danger of the world finding out about all that sheep porn I download.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 19, 2009)

The NY Times article said:


> "...a new agency that would send warning letters to copyright violators; those who ignored two warnings would lose their Internet service."



Only after being found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers, right? I mean, France is a democratic nation, right?


----------



## Thonex (May 19, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 19 said:


> "I'm guessing if your downloads would leave a record for 5 years, one might not pirate as much... knowing that you could be exposed over the course of 5 years."
> 
> I'd have to set up a farm in my backyard if there were any danger of the world finding out about all that sheep porn I download.



Yeah... but sheep porn is not illegal.... or so I've been told :lol:


----------



## artsoundz (May 19, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 19 said:


> "I'm guessing if your downloads would leave a record for 5 years, one might not pirate as much... knowing that you could be exposed over the course of 5 years."
> 
> I'd have to set up a farm in my backyard if there were any danger of the world finding out about all that sheep porn I download.



is it so wrong to love?

Just remember- BAAAAA means BAAAAAA.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> "...a new agency that would send warning letters to copyright violators; those who ignored two warnings would lose their Internet service."


Who are you quoting?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 19, 2009)

Right you are, art - there's nothing wrong with thaaaaaaaaaaat.

And thanks for letting me know, Thonex - I was worried.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 19, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Wed May 20 said:


> RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > "...a new agency that would send warning letters to copyright violators; those who ignored two warnings would lose their Internet service."
> ...



The NY Times article. Let me go edit that....


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Wed May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:
> ...


The French article above gives the information that the enforcement is to be done under court order. Justice system and government are separate in all Westerm democracies as far as I know.

Maybe you could provide a link so the statement could be put in context.


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2009)

I just found out that the whole law is already rejected by the EU and France cannot implement it as stated in the form explained very well by the translations that Markus found:

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ ... ule-597208


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

Jaap @ Tue May 19 said:


> I just found out that the whole law is already rejected by the EU and France cannot implement it as stated in the form explained very well by the translations that Markus found:
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ ... ule-597208


The article you are linking was published May 7th. Five days later on May 12 France passed the legislation by majority vote in the French parliament. The opinion of the person who wrote the article that it would be too difficult for France to pass the National legislation was evidently misinformed.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 19, 2009)

"Justice system and government are separate in all Westerm democracies "

Yes and no. Government puts forth the laws; justice system enforces them. One cannot work without the other. Sometimes the justice system works on it's own (for ex. a murder), sometimes the Government uses the justice system to enforce it's own laws (for ex, SEC violations here in the USA).

The link I followed was the one given in the initial post.

"enforcement is to be done under court order"

That is a perfect example of a non-democratic justice system. In a real democratic justice system, a court order is required to collect certain (usually key) evidence - never to enforce. Enforcement is carried out by the police and district attorney's office - not by court order. Judgement is handed down by a jury of your peers - not by court order. Punishment is handed down either by the jury, or by the judge as reccommended by the jury - never by court order.

Cheers.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> "Justice system and government are separate in all Westerm democracies "
> 
> Yes and no. Government puts forth the laws; justice system enforces them. One cannot work without the other. Sometimes the justice system works on it's own (for ex. a murder), sometimes the Government uses the justice system to enforce it's own laws (for ex, SEC violations here in the USA).
> 
> ...


You are incorrect about this. Law enforcement is only performed under court jurisdiction. Laws are created through the democratic system by the parliament which represents the population proportionally. No government authority can affect how the courts enforce the democratically established laws. This is a fundamental idea in democracies of Western societies, and it is the way these laws are now created, to be enforced by the courts.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith,

You are also incorrect about "a jury of peers" in the French justice system. The French justice system, just like the Swedish and, I believe, most non-Anglo-Sachson Western courts, do not generally use a "a jury of peers". In France there is only one exception in the "Court of Sessions", Sweden has similarly an exception to this rule in court proceedings regarding freedom of speech. Otherwise the system works in different ways than the English/American system.


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2009)

Information is really cluttered around the internet about how to continue with this law and I really need to dig into it more to find all the good up to date info.

I still hope it will continue since I still think, eventhough the controversial methods, its a good law. I would sacrafise some of my internet privacy if it can stop piracy and child porn (also included in this law as far as I understood).


----------



## RiffWraith (May 19, 2009)

Maybe youa re misunderstanding me; maybe I did not make myself clear enough.

"Law enforcement is only performed under court jurisdiction."

Where - in France? 

"You are also incorrect about "a jury of peers" in the French justice system. The French justice system, just like the Swedish and, I believe, most non-Anglo-Sachson Western courts do not use a "a jury of peers".

Right - that's exactly my point! I never said the French justice system uses a "a jury of peers" - I was talking about a _democratic_ justice system.

So, France does not do a trial by jury? What happens when you break the law (supposedly) - the arrest, conviction and sentence are all done by the courts? Man, glad I don't live there!


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> Maybe youa re misunderstanding me; maybe I did not make myself clear enough.
> 
> "Law enforcement is only performed under court jurisdiction."
> 
> ...


So you are saying that the American/English justice system is the only democratic justice system in the world? How much do you know about the way justice systems work in other countries?


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> So, France does not do a trial by jury? What happens when you break the law (supposedly) - the arrest, conviction and sentence are all done by the courts? Man, glad I don't live there!



Same is in the Netherlands, its done by court and I actually think it is a great concept. You are judged by the law represented by people who studied it, not judged by a group of persons that has no real deep fundamental understanding of the law, but that thinks with their heart and social background.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 19, 2009)

"So you are saying that the American/English justice system is the only democratic justice system in the world? "

Now, where the hell did I say that? Please refrain from putting words in other people's mouths.

"You are judged by the law represented by people who studied it, not judged by a group of persons that has no real deep fundamental understanding of the law, but that thinks with their heart and social background."

Personally, I want people judging me with their hearts and social backgrounds - not by law studies. What makes you think that someone who studied law and has a real deep fundamental understanding of the law is better suited to come to a conclusion on whether or not you are guilty? And think of all the possibilites of corruption and overzealousness - "well, this person teased my wife when they were in elementary school, so..." Where is your fair trial?


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2009)

I understand where you are going and it's probably a matter of personal prefference, but in the way I see it and how the law is applied here in the Netherlands is as follow:

The law is extremely wide and complicated. A court here in the Netherlands will take every minor detail in consideration with the law itself and only looking at the law without any personal prefference at first. You will be judged technically and personally I prefer that. 

There is not much room here for personal influences since a court will always consist of 3 different judges. It's as honest as it can be within a system and as like every system, it's has it exceptions of course.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 19, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 19 said:


> "So you are saying that the American/English justice system is the only democratic justice system in the world? "
> 
> Now, where the hell did I say that? Please refrain from putting words in other people's mouths.


Where do you then find a court system based on jury trials outside of the English/American justice system. Probably in the English colonies, and the Commonwealth, but where else?


----------



## PolarBear (May 19, 2009)

Actually I'm too tired to cover the technical side today... sorry, I'll come back tomorrow... please don't turn the thread into an "our law system is better than yours"-thread meanwhile. The topic is too important for me.


----------



## PolarBear (May 20, 2009)

Ok. So here we go...

*Prologue. Please put things in perspective.*
The 6 letters in "pirate" got a mighty expression in all these discussions. A guy who steals 3 albums from a CD store might not get into that store ever again, but he's not excluded from any CD shops. And please don't fall for the trap that many non-democratic thinking people make: Once proven criminal you're always a criminal - that is namely in a sentence like - he downloaded one album, haha, I'm sure he got dozens and dozens that way. That's an assumption, nothing proven. You have to catch the CD store thief every single of the 3 times to say he stole 3 times not 4.

*Chapter 1. What is an illegal download?*
Somebody who doesn't have the rights to do so is offering downloads publicly on copyrighted work (let's have this term in this post for everything, mostly meant for music albums, DVDs, software and the like, though let's face it, Hadopi is aiming mostly if not exclusevily at illegal music and film downloads). We have to define publicly also now, as for example in Germany you can unlike in the US share any music you got with your friends legally. Though I could arrange with a law to prohibit that, as it originates from times when copying meant also quality reduction which is not the case with digital copies. Yet in Germany you can do whatever you want with your property for your own use, that means backup copies for yourself or anything like that (afaik these things are also restricted in the US). What does that mean? I could for the sake of backup or in order to play some of my music from the internet upload some of my albums to the net as long as I don't share it publicly. I'll come back on that part later, I'm mentioning it here, because it would mean a legal and not illegal copy of music floating through the net.

So... illegal downloads - you actually know, that this copyrighted work is usually costing something and the link provided do so without charging you. There are also illegal downloads who charge you fees for downloading. In that case it get's even trickier. Did you know that the seller didn't really sell you a rightfully obtained Dolce & Gabana umbrella when you bought it? Laws already cover that with terms like good faith and obviousness.

Illegal downloads, you know it should cost and now some promotion from some company is offering unlimited free downloads on the same file rightfully. You get exactly the same thing (digital copy) from an usually illegal source. Did you actually do something illegal if everyone else got the exact same thing for the same from the legal source... namely nothing but bandwidth? This is a phenomenon not covered yet by laws. Actually no, they do: at the moment this is illegal. But the question remains as you'll also see later on.

*Chapter 2. Sources of illegal downloads.*
There is not only torrents. They may still be the major part of illegal activity, but there's a whole lot more things to get copyrighted work from: There are other P2P based services, e.g. eDonkey, DirectConnect, Soulseek. There is also the Usenet. You can also get many things from Rapidshare or other popular or less popular One-Click-Hosters. Finally you could get copyrighted work from more or less private FTP-Servers. These are only the most common ways to "share" copyrighted work, history has shown (e.g. Napster) that once one of these "distribution ways" gets cut off another route will be taken and be established pretty fast (the word torrent hardly anybody knew back when Napster was closed).

Most of these have a common denominator: The access to the files is usually established via websites. Be it PirateBay that lists torrents or websites and blogs that link eDonkey files or the Usenet-forums (well that's not web anymore technically, but I'm not going so much more into detail, it's a forum basically). This is also causing that you can get pretty far with Google and your search term through the many various sources that don't require registration.

*Chapter 3. Appearance of warez.*
With a CD it's pretty easy: round with a hole in it, throw it in the player, if you're lucky and it will ignore the scratches you'll soon get to hear something. On the net there are different file types. Most commonly there are mp3s, but there are also songs from iTunes, there are lossless formats like FLAC, there are oggs, there are... I could go on for quite a while only to bore you out of it. Hundreds of variations for the music format. Now these could come as single downloads each or packed with RAR, ZIP, as ISO, as ... you get the picture, another dozen possibilities, password protection of packed files is a common "option". Release boys want you to recognize them for whatever... private goosebumps perhaps. There is even more wicked stuff for movies when you get into the realm of codecs, as ".avi" doesn't automatically mean you could play it on or computer. Even some of the hardcore pirates are scratching their heads sometimes how to open this or that file. They got it but can't use it, irony of fate, right? 

*Chapter 4. About identifying a person on the net.*
Now we're getting more closely to the actual topic. Your ISP (internet service provider) will provide you with a modem that you connect to your network interface. Sometimes you'll already get a router (LAN and/or WLAN) so that multiple PCs in your home can share the same internet connection. In this realm it doesn't matter if you're connected to the internet via ADSL, cable, dial-up or satellite (comeon, smile please, you didn't think of that possiblity, did you)  In all these cases you get an IP (let's say this is 144.133.122.111 for now) that is for the duration of your connection the part that will identify you in the net. If you now have a router, the IP is assigned to the router, not the PCs. The PCs get a private IP assigned by the router they're connected to (usually going like 192.168.x.x), and the router handles all the packet flows between the computers connected and the internet. The router is the only part to know which PC receives a certain requested information/website from the private network behind it. For more information about this topic google "NAT". So if the ISP sends some data packet to the IP 144.133.122.111 he assigned the user to, the packet does not end at the router, as he will know that the PC with IP 192.168.0.2 behind the router requested that exact packet and will forward it to that PC. There is no way to get to know the IP address 192.168.0.2 from outside. So you can technically only identify the person who booked the internet connection from the ISP.

Now there are also such things as free internet connections e.g. in Germany at T-Mobile HotSpots, McDonalds restaurants and others. Now they are responsible for whom they let share the internet connection. But they are (thank god) not allowed to control what you're doing on that internet connection. I guess you saw the problem already without me mentioning it explicitely. But I'll give it a little twist. You don't want McD to see your data, do you... actually McD in that case is not acting as restaurant but simply as little ISP to you. Why now exactly would you want that your ISP is examining your data?

*Chapter 5. Preparing to download and observe downloads.*
Actually in order to get called a pirate you gotta do something illegal, right... thus fur we just did nothing. We're an average pirate user now. We're reading our mails in one tab, we're browsing VI in the other tab, and now that this guy named some Zimmer score we're curious and want it. We open the next tab and google for a torrent file to get it. Did we something illegal yet? No. We were looking. Now we turn on BitComet or whatever you might wanna use for it and insert the torrent. Did we do something illegal yet? No. We were checking if the file was alive. Now we're starting with the download. Did we do something illegal yet? The laws differ here. At least the will to commit the crime now is obvious. Some laws treat the will as if the crime was really done completely, some will handle it differently until the action is completed. And there are many ways for a pirate that he won't get thus far. Temporal server outage, ISP reconnects, corrupt download files, wrong password to the file (you know, the irony of fate) ...

Let's say he could complete the download, as in most cases it's gonna work. At which point do we have to observe his actions? Hadopi could only work nationally, the only national source that is connected between you and "the internet" is your ISP. So in order to see what you do, they have to observe your internet connection at your ISPs. Internet traffic is packetized, that means small chunks of data are flowing unfixed paths through the "net" (which you could imagine really as a net, there is like a million ways from you to the other side of the net you are currently downloading from). This is as far important, as I previously asked, when is the crime really done? From a single packet you can only see the will to do, in order to complete a crime you need trace of all packets. I'm not going to bother with this question anymore, let's say the will to do is enough and the same for us.

(wow... I'm reaching the char limit on this post actually, never happened to me before... some more to go guys... go get it!  )


----------



## PolarBear (May 20, 2009)

*Chapter 6. How to identify the illegal act of downloading.*
Take a quick breath please. Imagine you're a prosecutor at Hadopi office. You know *how* to get the stuff, you now are looking at a persons internet traffic. A whole lot of packets, you know, VI browsing, email stuff, torrent website, and some other things maybe in the background like antivirus software upgrade. Now you identify an IP of a server that you don't know. We have a suspect! Do we? You don't know zilch about what you're looking at, you make assumptions as I was letting you. Even if you saw already the header of the file and know it's a mp3, it could as well be a composition from a private host of a Vi composer that our "suspect" is listening to. Now have a look back on chapter 3 please... it could as well be a zip-file containing what we're looking at. In order to get to know that we have to open the file and see if it is really containing copyrighted material. We would have to get the file also in our prosecutor's hands.

Now we had some "illegal" file transmitted, but the user mailed it to himself for his vacation. Cut the pirate off the net! Now we have this file transmission observed and saved, errr... shit, we don't know the pass to the zip file, because it's a torrent file we can't find anymore because the web went belly up meanwhile. Now we have this file transmission observerd and saved, oh, oops, that were the company charts from Michelin, sorry. Wait a sec, they get a lot more income than they're pay tax on officially... hmm... tax prosecutor, you got a go!

I'm pulling a little story because of one thing: There is no such thing as caught in the act on the web! You actually have to sit on the fence knowing who deals and who buys from the dealer, then catch the buyer (in our case the pirate) when buying or having bought stuff from the dealer.

The really ugly thing about this is: You plan to only charge the buyers and let dealing happening throughout all instances. Actually it's really awkward that you are going to do nothing now that you already know there is criminal activity! Supply creates demand not only in our case. But you don't plan to cut off the supply chain at all, you try to cope with it on the demand side only! 

*Epilogue. The art of making people believe.*
So as we saw there is like a million possibilities that copyrighted work is shared/distributed and it's not that the pirates have technically ever come to an end. I mentioned complete secure lines and traffic encryption earlier in the thread, this is an easy to implement option on any Usenet-Server and also P2P-connections. Hell, even server downloads could be provided securely. Now whom do we get? The really dumb who share/download one or two albums a month. The major pirates won't get caught. What do we give up for it? Like in my example above... complete control (if we want and have the manpower to do so) over all internet traffic, because theoretically we are bound to have a look at every packet flowing on wires within the national borders.

Now back again to our scope... Whom are we catching? This law is mostly intended to help with the big problems. You won't start trying to get the twenty or fourty kids downloading Omnisphere. You are trying to get a percentile of the million who want the latest Britney Spears album. That means: Major (!) theatre movies, major labels. These are gonna profit from the law, *if* someone could get caught. And what are these people doing? They stealing a CD, they're not buying the single album in the store. Please put things in perspective:

Does it end piracy? Not at all. Does it end privacy? Totally.

Not worth it. Period.


----------



## PolarBear (May 20, 2009)

And please do me a favor... if you're quoting, don't quote the whole lot


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 22, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 18 said:


> I support France 100% on this law. I think most people would support the law if it was the only way to stop rape and murder. When it is the only way to stop the "murder" on creative artists around the world people think differently. Why? Would the world be better without professional artists and creators of IP?
> 
> It is a human right to live off your work and to own your intellectual property and not have it taken from you, just as you have rights to your physical property, according to the European Union's constitution. Surfing anonymously on the Internet is not a human right or a necessity for anyone. The law will make it possible to turn off the Internet for someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material.



Hans, you're right on!

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread posts but you guys should make up your minds (not intended to everyone here but to those that have a problem with a law that attemps to protect artistic ownership)

What is it that you want?
your music to actually be yours and to generate royalties when it is distributed, using whatever medium, 
or are you happy with failing to have the power to make people accountable when they find ways to avoid paying you for your intellectual property?

If you are a member of la SACEM (french PRO), it is illegal for you to give away your writter's share. no matter the circumstances. 
(this is just an example of the type of thing that business as usual in the US has made impossible to achieve)
Why is it that it is a reality there and not here?
Why is it that you have a problem when a law is being passed that attempts to protect the rightful ownership of an artist.
The penalty is severe but justifiably so.
Not to make the rich (corporate) richer, but to allow the artist to receive compensation for a lifetime commitment.
As long as a law addresses that point, I'm for it.

(but to be honest, I haven't looked beyon the surface of the above discussed law + I am no lawyer)

Some have already said it, but I wish we stopped bitching and got to a consensus.
All united, we could get more favorable representation in this country.

and no, I am no communist... :mrgreen:


----------



## PolarBear (May 22, 2009)

It's not about not protecting the artists. I'm all for that. But honest people have to sacrifice too much for it if it's gonna be such a deceiving system like Hadopi. This thread is all about this special law and not about rightfully possession of writers share or whatnot. You have to look carefully about what this law is about (the first of its kind in the world) before you say you support this law! If you do not, it is like electing a wing party but not having read their programme at all. But it shows only too well that somehow people seem to be blinded when some cash is blinking in their eyes.

It's the obscure methods of prosecution, that I criticize, not that artists are threatened by piracy.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 22, 2009)

Getting involved in this thread is certainly going to force me to look into the law itself...

...but the principal that people using the internet will be subjected to a certain amount of scrutinity (and how much of it is certainly an important point here) seems unavoidable. The same way your mail or phone conversations may have been intruded upon in the past.
Who are we kidding?
Do you have any illusions that your privacy remains virgin?
We are all classified, broken down to statistics and data whether we like it or not.
I am not saying it is a good thing but it is real nonetheless.

If you use the internet, don't complain that those that created it and control the game are playing foul. It is implied from the beginning.

And yes, sorry, if it can make me a buck, I am fine with it, 'cause at this point some other dudes are making the deals and I am not getting a cut on that...


----------



## PolarBear (May 23, 2009)

Yes, I'm fine with observation as it is needed in places because some people simply can't behave when they can save a buck. It's that

a) there is no presumption of innonence with this law anymore (guilty until proven not guilty, which is not possible for a normal user even with this suspect government software that seems to log all your internet activities on your computer installed, you better than many know how faulty programs can be - actually it's [not] funny, I was not able to find an english description of what this program is *supposed* to do yet) and

b) there is no court or judical authorization for observation and no judical authorization for punishment as long as you don't reject after the punishment is enforced already.

c) it will *not* help *you* making a cent more. The major labels and film producers will make a bit more, not substantially tho and I doubt they get more than it's gonna cost the tax payer to prosecute all this.

History also prove the mankind not to be trusted on these things: The German Democratic Republic had a department of 2.200 employees and special machines in order to secretly open all sealed letters and envelopes to spy out on all the nations people corresponding with the rest of the world. This law is, while not intended at the same thing, basically opening the can of worms that no government should be allowed to. The French were aroudn the first to introduce secrecy of correspondence in the 18th century, and they constituted, that postoffice clerks who violate this secrecy will be punished with death penalty. Now they shifted their view quite a bit meanwhile it seems...

In Germany only recently their were quite a few major companies accused and proven to observe their employees private correspondences secretly and illegally. Why would they do that? They did so even that it is forbidden. And it's forbidden because it's a pretty mighty tool if you can do so and if these kind of powers are granted they're usually protected by strong judical observation.

Just once again for clarification: I'm not denying we're having big problems with piracy. I'm just saying that this special law is not even a thinkable solution and as I also explained in my two lengthy posts above it will not at all help with the real problem.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 23, 2009)

1. There is no ambiguity what is a copyright violation: A copyright violation is when unauthorized copy production is performed.

2. See "1."

3. See "1."

4. Only one person/entity can sign a subscription for Internet access. The person on the contract is responsible for the any illegal use of the service of the IP address distributed by the ISP. There is only one service per contract.

5. Uploaders of copyrighted material, and websites hosting connections to uploaders of copyrighted works are hiding behind the anonymity of those who download. When there is a complaint from a copyright holder that illegal copies are made available, there is now a way of establishing that copy production actually has taken place, and who is responsible: the contractual ISP service subscriber under whoms subscription the illegal downloads are being made.

6. The normal procedure in case of a copyright violation is that the owner of copyright to a specific works reports a violation. There are too many violations to even have a chance of monitoring a fraction at the moment. But those who are the most damaging, will definitely be reported, and action taken to stop the hemorrhage. For the last ten years it has not been possible to stop the deadly hemorrhaging.

Epilogue. The saddest thing is that intelligent, and informed people like you have not had the chance to take part of the stories and the realities of all those who are devastatingly affected by illegal downloads. The populistic media today gives a picture that this is only a concern for "rich" companies, that are "greedy". The reality is that affects millions of people around the world whose work on earth is to provide intellectual works for the rest of humanity to enjoy. The smaller entities are those that you will not be able to read about in the paper. 

No one has yet suffered any injustice from regulating trafficking with intellectual property on the Internet of the kind you are describing. But millions of people have suffered the consequences of the loopholes in our justice systems that have allowed pillaging of artists and creators for the last ten years. It is time to do something about it and correct a wrong.


----------



## Thonex (May 23, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sat May 23 said:


> No one has yet suffered any injustice from regulating trafficking with intellectual property on the Internet of the kind you are describing. But millions of people have suffered the consequences of the loopholes in our justice systems that have allowed pillaging of artists and creators for the last ten years. It is time to do something about it and correct a wrong.



+1
o-[][]-o


----------



## Jaap (May 23, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sat May 23 said:


> No one has yet suffered any injustice from regulating trafficking with intellectual property on the Internet of the kind you are describing. But millions of people have suffered the consequences of the loopholes in our justice systems that have allowed pillaging of artists and creators for the last ten years. It is time to do something about it and correct a wrong.



This is the best statement I have seen so far.

I have just finished a long project for an indie company. It was a special project for us and we invested a lot of extra time in it building an adaptive audio engine for the game. Together with the dev's in Canada we worked day and night to get this done. It was a fantastic ride and worth every effort, but 15 hours after it was released we found already a torrent on a website.
This was just an ambitious indie dev project. Those guys have been working 3 years on it and we 1 year, but the sales are screwed up from day 1. 
This is just one of the thousands and thousands stories people are facing every day.

We are living in a modern Europe and of course there are always some "big brother is watching" scenes and of course we should care about our privacy, but so far let the French implement this law and test it and please let other countries do the same and work it out within the EU and later outside the EU as well to make a good solid law. 

I stick with my point that we should go for it, though I really appreciate the long extensive post from Polarbear.


----------



## Thonex (May 23, 2009)

Jaap @ Sat May 23 said:


> I stick with my point that we should go for it



Agreed.

Nothing is perfect... and I'm sure better solutions will evolve down the road... but you have to start somewhere. This seems like a starting point.


----------



## PolarBear (May 23, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sat May 23 said:


> 1. There is no ambiguity what is a copyright violation: A copyright violation is when unauthorized copy production is performed.


Better and shorter description of what I tried to say. 2 and 3 were intended for getting to know the dimension of the problem. If you only deal a small fraction of it like it's the case with Hadopi - there is almost no or even no effect. It's also that I tried to say it's not as easy as you might think even with Hadopi and the laws to be expected around it to prove the illegality of a file transfer. How would we ever know that the content of a password protected zip-file is really containing what we regard an illegal download?




Hans Adamson @ Sat May 23 said:


> Epilogue. The saddest thing is that intelligent, and informed people like you have not had the chance to take part of the stories and the realities of all those who are devastatingly affected by illegal downloads. The populistic media today gives a picture that this is only a concern for "rich" companies, that are "greedy". The reality is that affects millions of people around the world whose work on earth is to provide intellectual works for the rest of humanity to enjoy. The smaller entities are those that you will not be able to read about in the paper.


The saddest thing for me is that intelligent and informed people around here and elsewhere do neglect the fact that it is simply impossible to track down the vast majority of such illegal activities this way. Once all the internet traffic is encrypted you are back to square one or even zero, because now you gave up personal privacy of things that are not affected by it also for it.




Hans Adamson @ Sat May 23 said:


> No one has yet suffered any injustice from regulating trafficking with intellectual property on the Internet of the kind you are describing. But millions of people have suffered the consequences of the loopholes in our justice systems that have allowed pillaging of artists and creators for the last ten years. It is time to do something about it and correct a wrong.


(*) I don't understand how anyone could want to be a suspect of murder just because he bought a gun, knife or robe? There doesn't have to be any reasonable suspicion in order to set the ball rolling. I would be ok with some if there had to be reasonable suspicions to go for action/observiation and if there is judicative control over it. So far it's just a government spy agency, or even better like in the Irish republic, it's private companies that do the spying for the government. I cannot believe how you could let go of these substantial rights to freedom of speech so easily.

(*) Edit: I sad there where no examples. There are. For instance Hitler. The "Reichstagsbrandverordnung" as emergence decree had besides restricted freedom of speech, restricted freedom of assembly and a few other actions also the restriction of secrecy of letters. It was the key decree for Hitler's takeover. Quite a few suffered quite a lot from this. Hadopi is only one step to this direction, but a clear one at that.

Another one, not so historic yet, but directly related: Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, an employee of the French broadcast station TF1, sent an e-Mail to his MP (Member of Parliament) expressing his opposition to the French “3-strikes” law. he got fired for this. The termination was said to be because of “strategic differences” with TF1. How could this happen? His MP passed on the letter to Ministry of Culture in question for arguments for a possible answer, which passed it to Guggenheim's employer TF1.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 23, 2009)

Polarbear,

You are presenting a case that have been rejected by a majority of the French parliament, which proportionally represents the people of France. The law has been passed through the democratic process. If the French people later on is unhappy with the results on the grounds you describe, the law can just as easily be changed, or revoked by the parliament. France is a democracy, not an autocracy.


----------



## PolarBear (May 23, 2009)

Germany was democratic before Hitler, too. Very democratic before, very undemocratic after his takeover.

And I'm questioning the intelligence of the majority here indeed. It's said to be a personal fav of president Sarkozy also. There is a lot of power shifts involved that are not so easily foreseeable and changeable as you express here.

I just edited the above post for another example btw.


----------



## PolarBear (May 23, 2009)

Btw. I seriously and highly doubt the majority of France's citizens would approve this law if they were to pass it in a direct democratic way if there is no misleading informations about the effectiveness of this law. Granted though that the majority are not artists.


----------



## Markus S (May 25, 2009)

*Re: Loppsi 2 -- "If this is true, it almost makes the HADOPI, or three strikes law, seem like nothing."*



Hans Adamson @ Tue May 19 said:


> Markus S @ Tue May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > The only english article I found about it :
> ...



Yes, but the "if the court finds reason-part" will not given any more if the law gets to it's term. I don't know the exact political terms in English, but the idea is to get this kind of procedure under the authority of the government and not an independent judge.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 25, 2009)

PolarBear @ Sat May 23 said:


> Germany was democratic before Hitler, too. Very democratic before, very undemocratic after his takeover.
> 
> And I'm questioning the intelligence of the majority here indeed. It's said to be a personal fav of president Sarkozy also. There is a lot of power shifts involved that are not so easily foreseeable and changeable as you express here.
> 
> I just edited the above post for another example btw.



Give me a break! :roll: 

You are discrediting yourself by making such comparisons.
Looking at your posts and how you systematically reject all other posters' opinions, I doubt that any arguments is gonna change your mind.
Too bad, there isn't much growing, when you fail to reassess your point of view, once you have the opportunity to examine other tangents...


----------



## PolarBear (May 25, 2009)

Patrick, take your break 

I took mine, as I re-read my sometimes angry-looking posts in this thread (which I'm not, I'm just :shock: and :roll: more than usual) and yes, it's also my doubt my mind is gonna change on this if not forced to do so. But I also doubt there would be any other-side debater to admit he changed his mind either, as we both seem to be narrow-minded on this.

I'll offer some *more food for thoughts:* :idea: 

=o Many artists are getting less money because of illegal downloads. Yet the money is not gone, it is spent elsewhere. I do have the feeling, that there are more (pop) concerts and festivals than ever and the ticket prices aren't exactly falling. Festival attendance has more than doubled in the past few years in Germany for the most public events that didn't limit their ticket amount (yet). Please remember, only those will, if at all, get their share of a law like the Hadopi law and I'm not saying greedy here, today's artists share is just not CD sales only.

0oD People are pirating music for they want have to have everything free. Really? iTunes store was introduced in 2003 and sold a whopping 6 billion songs online. How could that happen if the same source, the internet, offers pirated versions of the same in supposedly greater choice for nothing. People who know to use the internet a bit and how to get the songs from iTunes are able to get those pirated copies also. And these people thus far did not have much of an advantage over the pirates with their legal digital downloads.

:( If we give up privacy for observation of these, although by numbers in total large, but by itself small crimes, we're, and Hans said that already, a lot more willing to give up more of our freedoms and privacy if innocent peoples' life is said to be menaced more than ever. This is mostly directed at "war on terror"-fighters or similar across the world, in the US, in Germany and in France, who are waiting in the wings to chime in on this topic. And who in their right mind would not agree that efforts to save lifes are welcome to all innocent if it is ok with some music and movie files. Not me. But also *not at any rate* and that's the point.

:? None of the more recent observation laws got removed again. If the government was so confident about this law would work the way they are planning, why not give it a proper trial time and then decide again if it is worth the penalties? Why not at least state the will, once piracy is taken down to an acceptable extent to remove the intrusion of privacy again? Why does it have to be definite? The administrative powers already know *it doesn't stop a thing*.

:oops: Observation and surveillance is a infinite loop: If it works somehow and "positive" results can be observerd, observers are demanding more observation in order to be able to exterminate all of the crimes. If observation and surveillance doesn't work, the methods are not faulty, they're not sufficient. So in either case, working or not, the pleads are "*more* observation", "*more* surveillance". I cannot support that and anybody liking their freedom shouldn't also.

8) With observation coming or feared every type of crime (and in our case piracy) will take other routes and especially not vanish or diminish by large. With surveillance cameras installed on public places, the crimes aren't getting less, they're moving to unsurveilled places, into the private. The next step has to be taken, *step by step* until everything is under complete control, but still not completely safe.


:arrow: The favored argument (not only in this discussion) for most who support more observation is, that _those who have nothing to hide don't have to fear anything._ Actually, they *do* have to.

:twisted: Laws can be made, laws can be changed. We have rights to vote for people and parties. But we will support a complete package of a whole lot of complex laws with that vote, and we have to weigh in which factors are more worth to us. That's even worse in the US where you only have the choice between this wrong way or that not-so-wrong way (the theory is different even for the US, I know). You may be able to agree with national policy but not with the international and vice versa, and that's most probably no easy choice (if you plan to choose anyway). Those who have nothing to hide, don't have to fear a thing? At least not all of them, the current majority of people perhaps, and in rare occasions not even that in some western countries. Once election is done, we have to stick for quite some time with the laws and how they are approved until they could perhaps be changed by our vote again. Those who don't have to fear anything, well, they don't have to fear governments action, do they? The administrative is always right and does no wrong. Those who don't have to fear anything should* have good faith in what the government does*. We shall all accept *the government doesn't* have good faith *in all of us in return* though.

o-[][]-o It's not an anonymous government to observe people, it's *people who observe people*. Not only people do make mistakes, they're also not all kindhearted unfortunately. And I'm not talking about pirates only here. Collection of data, the possibility to change, erase or create collected data is there. A possibility always creates temptation and sometimes people take the bait. Collection of data, intact or altered on purpose, is the ultimate source for people to *blackmail other people*. It has to be dealt with the upmost catiousness and that was usually the case yet.

:evil: Those who have nothing to *hide* don't have to *fear* a thing. Now who's hiding and who's fearing here? The *observers* don't have to fear a thing - they're hiding between the most impressive *anonymity* granted to them, so it can't even be seen *that* you are being observed. It will remain invisible to you when not convicted, and it will remain invisible what else exactly they saw even when convicted.

Now please come back on me and reassure your 100.00 percent support on such law, if you're already knowing it's *not very effective at all*. I'll leave it up to you to think it through, and am looking forward to a few more rational arguments from the other side for the question if *this is the only way the deal the problem?*
~o)

(Edit: on paragraph 3: changed "give up privacy on these ... crimes" into "give up privacy for observation of these ... crimes" I didn't meant crimes to be private but general privacy being affected by crime observation)


----------



## PolarBear (May 26, 2009)

Jaap, thanks for your answer.



Jaap @ Mon May 25 said:


> I fully admit that there are some things in this law that raises my eyebrowes as well


So let's get it done fast, get over it faster and then "see how it works out"? :shock: My life is no beta program. Although men are sometimes called alpha dogs.




Jaap @ Mon May 25 said:


> ...everyone should be treathed as suspect. If you are a suspect of stealing, money lawndry or whatever, the justice department can also search through your stuff.


That's two different things you name here a) you're suspect because you were born b) you're suspect because you did something (suspicious). If you apply a) (and Hadopi is supposed to work that way) there will be no right to privacy for anything anymore, you being and actually really doing nothing is suspicion enough.




Jaap @ Mon May 25 said:


> If a robber shows up, but didn't steal anything yet, does that make him not guilty as well if they are stopped before the action while his actions were clear?


I asked pretty much the same question. My answer to it was, that in our case a clear will to download stuff illegaly would be enough for me if the sanctions are of monetary basis.




Jaap @ Mon May 25 said:


> Could they arrest me? Sure they can, but would they? No, why should they? I have nothing to hide and I am willing to show and therefor I have nothing to fear.


I tried to find out for my country, how many people were doing time in "U-Haft" (remand, nothing proven yet but strong suspicion) by mistake (who are not guilty then by law), now guess how many... uncountable! Who has nothing to fear won't hide these numbers. But Germany doesn't count how many people are sitting behind bars and not being guilty of anything! They don't count it or don't make the numbers publicly availible! There are a few rough estimations based on claims for indemnifications (Bavaria's budget for 2009 is 5.3 million Euro for that matter) - but not nearly all unrightfully arrested are requesting the money... btw. that was recently raised from 11 to 25 Euro per day. Per day not in freedom and not with your wife or kids and per day not working even if you are not guilty. And they make you pay back 7 Euro per day of it for housing you and serving you food. And you haven't done a thing! Let alone any effects on your reputation or job... [on a sidenote: Bavaria's population is roughly 13 million people]

Please try to find the exact numbers for your country, too. It shouldn't be too hard, as nothing is to hide here. Once done ask anyone of the counted if the government said "sorry" to them for mostly destroying major parts of their lifes.




Jaap @ Mon May 25 said:


> You stated that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide


No, I said *you* *do* have something to fear. Boldly. Sorry. I'll probably just use CAPS next time.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2009)

Hi guys,

Even though I am against piracy, as everyone here, I am happy to announce, that the HADOPI law has been censured by the French Constitutional Council this evening.

The main reasons is that a punishment as severe as the restriction of an Internet access for 12 months cannot be pronounced by an administration, but only by a judge. This specific punishment of closing down the Internet access would be in contradiction with the fundamental right of free expression, of which Internet is a main part in todays society. The Constitutional Council has also declared the access to Internet a fundamental right in the constitution.

The non respect of the presumption of innocence has also been mentioned in the text. FYI : There was actually no way to prove your innocence, except using a spyware or firewall kind of program from the government that does not exist yet. You would have to pay for this program and install it yourself so it would then control the files that go through your computer. 

This decision equals a rejection of the law, as it originally was supposed to work, HADOPI will still have an "educational function", and inform users of the illegality of downloading copy write protected material and may result in a law suit, that then can result in a restriction of the Internet access.

The law allowed the administration HADOPI to send 3 warnings to the supposed pirates, then cut the Internet access, without law suit -- if you wanted to protest, you had to go to court yourself and prove your innocence.

RIP


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 10, 2009)

It is interesting that the "fundamental right of free expression" by using the Internet is protected over the fundamental right to your intellectual roperty, and the fundamental right to earn a living by your profession which are part of the EU constitution. There are more ways than the Internet to exercise freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of expression by using the Internet is not specifically protected by the EU constitution.

Also, it is not as if anyone would have been barred from using the Internet. Someone whose Internet account had been suspended because of repeated illegal downloads could still go on the Internet and express himself from any other computer with an Internet connection.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> It is interesting that the "fundamental right of free expression" by using the Internet is protected over the fundamental right to your intellectual roperty, and the fundamental right to earn a living by your profession which are part of the EU constitution. There are more ways than the Internet to exercise freedom of expression.
> 
> The right to freedom of expression by using the Internet is not specifically protected by the EU constitution.
> 
> Also, it is not as if anyone would have been barred from using the Internet. Someone whose Internet account had been suspended because of repeated illegal downloads could still go on the Internet and express himself from any other computer with an Internet connection.



The point here is that there was no judge involved. As I wrote before, it was up to you to prove your innocence, and it would seem it is very easy to pirate a Internet access, to use your IP address.

The freedom of expression using the Internet is considered an fundamental right in Europe from now on.

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendmen ... pted-again

Btw. I personally need Internet to make a living, and from my studio, not any access.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 10, 2009)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Wed Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that the "fundamental right of free expression" by using the Internet is protected over the fundamental right to your intellectual roperty, and the fundamental right to earn a living by your profession which are part of the EU constitution. There are more ways than the Internet to exercise freedom of expression.
> ...


Well, if that is true, every EU country is obliged to provide Internet access in every remote corner of the country. However, having seen the lack of enforcement of the rest of the constitution, I wouldn't think that would happen anytime soon.

The current charter of human rights in EU can be found here on the official EU website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2000:364:0001:0022:EN (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 022:EN<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":P" title="Tongue :P" data-shortname=":P" />DF)
It says nothing about rights to Internet:
_Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Article 12_

Also, the rights to work in your profession of choice, and your rights to your intellectual property are expressed as follows:
_Article 15
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of
establishment and to provide services in any Member State._

and

_Article 17
Right to property
1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired
possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in
the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good
time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general
interest.
2. Intellectual property shall be protected._


----------



## nikolas (Jun 11, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8089102.stm

Maybe not exactly news in the age of the Internet, but possibly a sign that we, as artists, also need to think things differently. Not because there is any kind of democracy and because some % is telling us so, but exactly because signs are here for us to take notice and consider.

Nothing to suggest, just thinking what could lie ahead and the best bet is to prepare ourselves...

Polar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (It was to be expected that at some point Hitler would show up in this thread! :D)


----------



## PolarBear (Jun 11, 2009)

nikolas @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Polar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (It was to be expected that at some point Hitler would show up in this thread! :D)


I should have expected someone going to mention Godwin law on this... now it doesn't really fit here though:
a) this comparison was an example of an aspect in the discussion, it is not one of my arguments or my only argument
b) the comparison was not made in order to end the discussion
c) it was put in perspective and especially not arbitrary
d) observation, control and the possibility and power to eliminate all opposing forces through this was the key to install and retain the Hitler regime
e) does Godwin's law mean, that Hitler's actions should be made invisible, not being taken into consideration in any of today's discussions anymore?

Anyway. We don't need so much history in our discussion and I'd wish we could drop the Hitler thing for now. I named a lot more directly related issues that are more than enough to show the critical points of such a law.


----------



## PolarBear (Jun 11, 2009)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> [...] This decision equals a rejection of the law, as it originally was supposed to work, HADOPI will still have an "educational function", and inform users of the illegality of downloading copy write protected material and may result in a law suit, that then can result in a restriction of the Internet access. [...]
> 
> RIP


Not quite exactly RIP... the court stated that internet access restriction could only be ordered by a judge. And yes, they also saw the presumption of innocence not respected enough.

However the government agency being able to send mails to identified internet users is still an uncensored part of the law, which the French government stated to introduce even with the censored passages. Unfortunately the major english and german media I read so far don't explicitely mention which passages were censored exactly, so I was not able to find out about how much the Hadopi office is able to intrude privacy.

But being able to send out eMails to internet users does involve that you can match IP addresses to personal data. This is complete news to the world and a French specialty now and I'm not cheering about this. It also means, that somehow the complete internet traffic floating through or within French borders is matter of government observation.

Not exactly RIP also, because Hadopi will be reworked to conform the censored issues so that judges will order the internet cut off and after HADOPI there is not an end to the discussion but already new law plans: LOPPSI 2.



> They further cast the stink-eye on monitoring of online activity, net filtering, the surveillance of journalists, and the wholesale retention of personal data. Such government monitoring is the basic outline of LOPPSI, "homeland security" legislation on tap from the Sarkozy government. LOPPSI legalizes government use of spyware (cookies, trojans, keyloggers, and the like) by law enforcement with sparse judicial review, and provides for a program called "Pericles" that would acquire, correlate and track a vast amount of data on individual citizens.



Once again - you can't clearly identify a pirate being a pirate by only watching his internet traffic. It's a technical issue that cannot be solved. It is beyond my imagination why this fact is so boldly neglected by all supporters of this law! :!:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 11, 2009)

Markus S @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Well, the intellectual property is still protected, it is still illegal to share files, and you can attack people to court for it. ...
> You cannot just put up some administration with such important power, that is what they are saying, you need to go to court and start a trial.


When I haven't paid the monthly bill for my Internet service it is immediately turned off. No need for the provider to go to a court and ask permission. Same thing with the telephone, electricity, credit cards and more. My Internet service can arbitrary be turned off even if I paid the monthly fee, but there was a snag with the bank transfer. The provider doesn't have to go to court first.
EU's constitution promises that protection of Intellectual Property will be protected. But it has never been enforced. Not until the case of a big file sharing site in Sweden was convicted. But still the Swedish prosecutors choose to only use the case as a pilot case, barring everyone except a few larger companies from representation. If your intellectual property is stolen in Europe, there is no justice, no enforcement of these "human rights". If someone steals your car in Sweden, you can report it to the police, and they will catch the criminal and he will be sentenced, because of your constitutional human rights to your property. If someone steals your intellectual property, the police and prosecutors will do nothing.


----------



## PolarBear (Jun 11, 2009)

I'm sorry but that's not the truth in Germany at least, Hans. There are many cases against filesharers and P2P network users here and they usually get convicted and have to pay a certain amount of money in relation to their crimes. The items in question mostly are music and movies.

Edit: or the cases end settled with the music industry out of court...


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 11, 2009)

PolarBear @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> I'm sorry but that's not the truth in Germany at least, Hans. There are many cases against filesharers and P2P network users here and they usually get convicted and have to pay a certain amount of money in relation to their crimes. The items in question mostly are music and movies.


Polar,
Shouldn't the EU Constitution be enforced in all of EU, not just in Germany? If EU has a constitution who enforces it? Why isn't it enforced?


----------



## PolarBear (Jun 11, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> PolarBear @ Thu Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but that's not the truth in Germany at least, Hans. There are many cases against filesharers and P2P network users here and they usually get convicted and have to pay a certain amount of money in relation to their crimes. The items in question mostly are music and movies.
> ...


Does it have to be an ineffective, not appropriate, technically not working solution which tangents and creates lots of new problems?


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 11, 2009)

When the police and the authorities stand passive, rolling their thumbs doing nothing, saying: Yeah they are robbing that guy, but he is just a "...." , - and this has been going on for the last decade. When is it going to stop? Evidently a constitutional law is not enough to protect the human rights of all citizens.


----------



## mf (Jan 9, 2010)

Privacy? What privacy?? Internet is not a private but a public place. When they're selling drugs on the street, we should let them do it? because everyone has the right to do whatever they want in a public place?
This medium has gone completely awry, it's full of filth, child porn, torrents, spam, scam, etc. Clean up time. This public place needs regulated. Who can't stand a decent, regulated public place, is free to go back to the caves and forests.


----------

