French law banning all piracy?

[Kusa-San]

It's you who don't understand Miss -_- Well I send you a PM in French because it will be more easy for me . But video games and music are different. I'm talking about music here not video game so please don't put it in the discussion. And sorry but where I said that majors did illegal thing O_o I only said they're bad wolf because they don't want to lose their privilege.

My point illogical where ? As I said it's a problem but I think we can resolv it, so where it's illogical ?

And here is the problem, you're thinking with the old system view not with the new one with internet. Wha'ts the better here, to add 7euro to your internet subscription and download every music you want or to download everything you want for free. What's the best answer ? Hadopi which will not change anything or a GL which is a good first answer ? (even if there is still some problem like the distribution)

And with a GL you won't steal anything since it will be legal. So..

And sorry but where I said that stealing music is a good thing ?

You said that I need to read your post but are you sure that you understood mine ?


Et c'est toi qui me fait taper la tête contre le mur pas moi >_<

[chikorita157]

This is a very bad law what they past... what happens if someone like a neighbor piggybacks on your wireless connection and pirate movies or software and you get hit with a penalty when you never pirated in your life? There are flaws in this law already because it can punish innocent people and also it's very difficult to monitor millions on the internet. Also, this law also raise privacy concerns because the ISP can now view all your unencrypted packets.

I like to reiterate that piracy or file sharing does not equal to stealing. Stealing is considered taking someone's property without intent and the point with Piracy, it's not physical nor it equates to a lost sale because the sale wasn't made in the first place. Stealing can be seen as taking a CD from a music store without paying.

If piracy is considered stealing, is lending a music cd or a DVD to a friend be considered stealing because another person can rip the CD/DVD or listen/view it without making another sale?

If they really want to prevent piracy, they should reduce the price of DVDs and CDs so people will less likely to pirate... and also stop using restrictive DRM schemes so that people can use the files on any device... or they can add a small flat fee to the ISP bill so that the companies can recoup the cost... but in the end of the day, it's not possible to stop piracy once and for all... there are still going to be a few people that will still be doing it.

So yes, this bill is a big failure and hurts people's freedoms and privacy... Yet's hope the European Union strucks the law down.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

I like to reiterate that piracy or file sharing does not equal to stealing. Stealing is considered taking someone's property without intent and the point with Piracy, it's not physical nor it equates to a lost sale because the sale wasn't made in the first place. Stealing can be seen as taking a CD from a music store without paying.

This line of reasoning irritates me sometimes. The intention of copyright laws is to protect intellectual property which, being intangible, is often described as "free", because ideas are free, right?

Unfortunately, yes and no. Ideas have "value", in the sense that it took resources to produce, for example, the number of man-hours taken to produce a software application. The number of years a musician took to learn how to play an instrument perfectly, to learn how to sing. The time spent on painting a masterpiece, and so on.

Or, to use an example that's even easier to relate to, a student's handwritten or typed essay. How would you evaluate the "worth" of the essay? By the paper it's printed on (as good as worthless)? Or by the amount of analysis, research and time spent on crafting a prize-winning argument?

So, what happens, then, if some cheat happens on the essay, plagiarises it word-for-word, and then passes it off as his own work? He didn't "steal" the paper that the original essay was written on, certainly, but he most definitely "stole" the effort put in by the original student, by copying his idea without permission or giving due credit.

If piracy is considered stealing, is lending a music cd or a DVD to a friend be considered stealing because another person can rip the CD/DVD or listen/view it without making another sale?

Yes, this is indeed one of the most difficult areas in arbitrating intellectual-property disputes. At what point does copying become illegal? In the past, when content was distributed only on physical media, it was easier to decide: When someone is counterfeiting CDs or DVDs on massive scale in order to sell them without permission, then it's deemed to be "piracy".

Digital online distribution, unfortunately, has complicated the whole affair, and till now, no country has yet been able to come up with a satisfactory solution. Content, which has intrinsic value, has become so massively distributable, that they appear almost valueless, and therefore not worth protecting, it appears.

If they really want to prevent piracy, they should reduce the price of DVDs and CDs so people will less likely to pirate... and also stop using restrictive DRM schemes so that people can use the files on any device... or they can add a small flat fee to the ISP bill so that the companies can recoup the cost... but in the end of the day, it's not possible to stop piracy once and for all... there are still going to be a few people that will still be doing it.

Actually no. The sooner that media companies accept that CDs and DVDs have become obsolete the better. What's the point now of coming up with laws like these to protect a business model that is doomed to fail? The amount of money and time spent on fighting a lost cause would be better spent on developing better online distribution models instead.

But the principle remains: Content has value. The trick, however, is in getting users to pay for it.

[Miles Teg]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

This is a very bad law what they past... what happens if someone like a neighbor piggybacks on your wireless connection and pirate movies or software and you get hit with a penalty when you never pirated in your life? There are flaws in this law already because it can punish innocent people and also it's very difficult to monitor millions on the internet. Also, this law also raise privacy concerns because the ISP can now view all your unencrypted packets.

The ISP won't monitor connexion and in fact they will play a very minor role in this.

That the way the law works :

1. the copyright holder create a list (list partially changed every month) of thing (music/video/...) that should be monitored and send it to the HADOPI.
2. The HADOPI ask companies (like BayTSP) to find (French) IP of people who download what is present on this list.
3. The HADOPI give that list of IP to the ISP to know who is behind each IP.
4. The HADOPI send an email to the pirate.
5. After a period of time (probably more than 1 month) if your name appear a second time, a letter is sent to your home + an email.
6. After a period of time (probably more than 1 month) If your name appear a third time, the HADOPI decide to cut your Internet connexion for 1 month to 1 year.

When your connexion is cut you have to pay your ISP like normal and you can't take a new subscription with another ISP.

After point 6. you can defend yourself against the HADOPI, your connexion will stay cut, and you will have to prove that you are not guilty (that your connexion has been pirated), the HADOPI don't have "real' proof that you are guilty (no search at your home/in your computer).

The letter/email that are sent to you, won't have a single information about what you have supposedly downloaded, and you won't be able to know that until you go speak with the HADOPI to defend yourself.

[qwertyuiopz]

canada is win

[Edgewalker]

I'm more surprised at how many French people are supporting and/or are neutral towards this law. I have no idea what the media brainwashing and information control techniques that the French government is using on it's people are, but they must be pretty damn effective.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

I'm more surprised at how many French people are supporting and/or are neutral towards this law. I have no idea what the media brainwashing and information control techniques that the French government is using on it's people are, but they must be pretty damn effective.

Either that or they just can't be bothered. France is hit pretty hard by the recession that even their FFL is planning on a sizedown. Everyone is working to put food on the table than to bother about stuff like this. Only when they get caught, then they will think about how to deal with the consequences.

Actually, there will be people who compare the people who support HADOPI to the milice of WWII. Just looting off whatever leftover supplies for their own good.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

I'm more surprised at how many French people are supporting and/or are neutral towards this law. I have no idea what the media brainwashing and information control techniques that the French government is using on it's people are, but they must be pretty damn effective.

Stop assuming that all those who are neutral or supports this law are obviously retarded or brainwashed.

Some parents for example, are supporting of this law. They have some reasons to think like that.

[Kusa-San]

Well it's a false statement to say "How many french people are supporting this law" since the government don't really care about this. If they want to pass their law, they will pass it and impose it. And it's what they have done They impose their law and don't care at all about opinion (that's why I really don't like this government).

[Vexx]

It sounds rather like:
1) an end-run around due process
2) the corporatists win another round with Sarkozy's blessing.
3) renormalization of copyright, patent, and trademark law gets deferred again.

TRL's discussion of "intellectual property" is interesting in that its *nice* to get compensation for your idea. However, the idea of this imaginary artifact being bought and sold (corporations slurping up ideas or creations and then extending IP protections into infinity) makes the current path eventually far more stifling of creation and innovation than no protections at all would. Mankind made quite a lot of progress with "no protections at all".... whereas now, a creator/inventor or even a corporation can find it hard to breathe without tripping over the "eternal protections" that litter the landscape.

Any artist or creator knows you do the performance and you might get compensated if people like it. The air of entitlement is hard to defend in historical context --- and considering the loudest defenders of this are NOT the creators but the corporations which have ensnared the rights (many artists hardly see a dime for their effort) I'd say its not as clearcut as they'd like to play it.

But as Narona herself says:

It causes a major democracy problem because every person who is accused of downloading an illegal file is considered guilty and, if he/she didn't do what he/she is accused for (it could happen.), has to give evidence of his innocence (and I guess it's not easy, if not impossible to do that). That is wrong. In our democracy, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

To me that's abrogation of due process and reason enough to stop it dead until they restructure the thing to *provide* due process. Otherwise it isn't much different than outsourcing law enforcement and prosecution to a private corporation who gets paid by the "kill". o.O

Technically and legally, legal precedent is leaning towards the fact that an IP address does not equal a person. ISP records of dynamic IP assignment are not faultless. Even if an IP assignment was recorded correctly, the possibility exists that the incident was a result of wireless "wardriving" or someone's friend visiting or... if the law makes the individual legally responsible for their network security then a whole lot of the population is in serious trouble (not that I might not like people to held legally responsible for their network security ).

Review RIAA case history for how messy and ill-executed this may play out.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Any artist or creator knows you do the performance and you might get compensated if people like it. The air of entitlement is hard to defend in historical context --- and considering the loudest defenders of this are NOT the creators but the corporations which have ensnared the rights (many artists hardly see a dime for their effort) I'd say its not as clearcut as they'd like to play it.

This is due to proportions of which the artiste and the distributing company is paid. It isn't "The singer is paid $XXXX less", it is "The singer is paid XX% less." So if the artistes loses revenue, the company loses more because it is by percentage difference.

Since the company heads are already earning alot, this pretty much proves how greedy they have become at the top.

[Vexx]

Ask many artists under contract and you'll find that they're told many of their projects never make a dime in profit according to the corporation's computation of the artist's take.... yet overall the corporation rakes in huge profits when they talk to their shareholders.

Magical accounting 101.

And artists who try to execute independently find they're shut out of venues because of "exclusive contracts" the big company has with the venue.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ask many artists under contract and you'll find that they're told many of their projects never make a dime in profit according to the corporation's computation of the artist's take.... yet overall the corporation rakes in huge profits when they talk to their shareholders.

Magical accounting 101.

And artists who try to execute independently find they're shut out of venues because of "exclusive contracts" the big company has with the venue.

Basically it is just saying, you need connections to make it big in that sector.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Basically it is just saying, you need connections to make it big in that sector.

You need connections to make it big in almost any sector. Why do you think PR skills are among the most useful skills you can ever pick up?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

You need connections to make it big in almost any sector. Why do you think PR skills are among the most useful skills you can ever pick up?

Not entirely true. It is possible to work up largely by hard work (though it is a pretty tedious process compared to sucking your way up). The media industry is exclusive because it is pretty much about selling "face" rather than a physical product, so PR skills are crucial no matter at what level.

Being a talent working up to a star, and being an engineer working up to being a Nobel Prize winner, those things are mutually exclusive because effort is pumped in different areas.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Vexx

TRL's discussion of "intellectual property" is interesting in that its *nice* to get compensation for your idea. However, the idea of this imaginary artifact being bought and sold (corporations slurping up ideas or creations and then extending IP protections into infinity) makes the current path eventually far more stifling of creation and innovation than no protections at all would. Mankind made quite a lot of progress with "no protections at all".... whereas now, a creator/inventor or even a corporation can find it hard to breathe without tripping over the "eternal protections" that litter the landscape.

Any artist or creator knows you do the performance and you might get compensated if people like it. The air of entitlement is hard to defend in historical context --- and considering the loudest defenders of this are NOT the creators but the corporations which have ensnared the rights (many artists hardly see a dime for their effort) I'd say its not as clearcut as they'd like to play it.

When it comes to the modern art and music industry, I think it's a question of scale. Historically, a lone artist could earn some money from his local community if they like (and buy) what he produces, but he could earn even more if he leveraged on the production and distribution channels provided by the major industry players (big, bad capitalists — why are they automatically considered bad, that's what I'd like to know). Reaching out to the global market, in the past, required resources way beyond what an individual artist could muster.

So, it's "fair" for record companies and auction houses to charge for their services, and hence their entrenched interest in protecting IP. The initial outlay had to be recouped and the investment had to be protected against those who would seek to copy the IP illegally to sell on their own. IP protection before the Internet was, in this sense, not very different from protecting against counterfeit currency.

Quite clearly, though, the Internet has changed everything for the media industry. Artists, theoretically, can now bypass the "greedy" middleman (to be frank, I don't see why corporations are automatically assumed to be evil, money-grubbing entities when most are run by ordinary people just like you and me; any company is only as "good" or "evil" as its staff and management) and reach out to the world directly. We're already beginning to see instances of such Internet celebrities on YouTube.

So, yes, maybe IP protection doesn't seem as relevant as it used to be. It seems increasingly possible to push the motion that free proliferation is good, that it encourages much more progressive innovation in a competing marketplace of ideas.

Personally, though, I see it as a double-edged sword. Such rampant proliferation can just as easily snuff out the incentive for competitive innovation as it encourages it. If there's no way to guarantee at least a minimum window of opportunity for the content producer to get compensation for his labour, why should he go through the trouble of producing it?

In any case, protecting an idea is but half the battle. Any plan, however brilliant, is only as good as its execution. The same could be said of an IP.

But as Narona herself says:
To me that's abrogation of due process and reason enough to stop it dead until they restructure the thing to *provide* due process. Otherwise it isn't much different than outsourcing law enforcement and prosecution to a private corporation who gets paid by the "kill".

All the more reason for me to wonder why the entertainment industry in France is left to carry out the actual monitoring of IPs — it sounds like a minefield of conflicting interests waiting to blow up.

[Vexx]

to be frank, I don't see why corporations are automatically assumed to be evil, money-grubbing entities when most are run by ordinary people just like you and me; any company is only as "good" or "evil" as its staff and management

For me, its in the inherent definition and charter of a corporation. Essentially we've evolved it into an artifact with all the rights of an individual but none of the responsibilities. Executives must maximize profit to the legal (or illegal) extent possible with no regard for principled behavior. Boards are made up of executives from other companies in a small incestuous bramble bush. There is no accountability for treatment of assets or employees. Executives and shareholders are in many cases exempt from direct accountability for corporate actions. There is zero motivation to plan for long term sustainability and only incentive for short-term gains (e.g. "Everything at Intel including the desks are for sale at all times"). There is no motivation to give back to the community for the infrastructure it consumes.

A reading on what corporations used to be and what they've become in the latter half of the 20th Century makes for interesting readings.

There have been good moments based on self-interest AND the interests of the employees, the community, and the customers, but each involved bucking the 'easy way' --
example from 1930 which seems prudent today: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0508/p09s01-coop.html
current example: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0430/p47s01-lire.html

[SaintessHeart]

Basically whatever Tiny and Vexx have said and all made sense, but in modern context, it has pretty much deviated from the pragmatic reality we are facing from day to day.

Firstly, there is a Chinese saying that goes, "Money cannot buy everything, but you can't do anything without money."* As things continue to change and prices continue to inflate (like how 20,000 pounds in the 1800s is worth a few million pounds now), it eventually became a cause for people to go all out to earn their monies. The dream of being rich seem to be a goal for ultimate happiness and contentment seemingly becomes having an infinite resource of material wealth. That "defines" the "modern pragmatism" in the 21st century, which is probably Karl Marx's prophecy of the "self-destructive effects of capitalism".

Secondly, the rapid evolution of technology has made our world shrink at a rate that could be termed geometrically progressive. The internet has become our world and lines thin between "virtual" and "physical" reality due to information being readily available at our senses through intelligent soft/hardware like Google Earth, Youtube and Wikipedia. We may not be able to smell flowers or taste food through the computer, but we are able to draw close comparisons with our imagination using the details provided in the words we read. No longer we need to hop down to the nearest retailer to get our music and games, but rather with iTunes and Direct2Drive, we can virtually get our entertainment needs with a few clicks of the button. Our dance routines have been replaced by DDR, our jamming sessions by hours on DMGF/Rock Band, and maybe the desire for our local armed forces' Ranger Course by CODMW!

Thirdly, we have gone so far from gold semiconductors to copper complex alloys in our computer systems, mass-manufactured by countries like China and India. Having a state of art computer in modern days is less than $1000 in local currency, comparing to how a Commodore 64 used to cost over $3000 back in the 1980s has made the points in the two above paragraphs more widely available to the masses, circumventing rights and waiting times. Would people want to go back to the times where they have to wait long days for the next album or concert? I don't think so.

To sum it all up, such a law enacted could only slow down progress, and not avoid it entirely. Proliferation comes with progress, therefore it is good to start thinking of new distribution methods, and use technology to reach out to the masses rather than sticking to whale oil lamps by claiming electricity is dangerous.

* - It is actually from my local TV in the early years of my country, by manzai styled comedic duo Wang Xia and Ye Feng (or what my parents told me wrt to their names). It could have existed thousand of years ago, I am not sure.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Would people want to go back to the times where they have to wait long days for the next album or concert? I don't think so.

To sum it all up, such a law enacted could only slow down progress, and not avoid it entirely. Proliferation comes with progress, therefore it is good to start thinking of new distribution methods, and use technology to reach out to the masses rather than sticking to whale oil lamps by claiming electricity is dangerous.

Most of us said it, the business model about the distribution of products like songs and movies has to change because we have the technology to provide a better way of providing some products to customers.

What some people are pointing is that the progess was also partly speeded up by a lot of people (not all, but a lot of people whatsoever) who have no problem to disregard an important law.

As I see it, it means that if it was as easy to steal things in a supermaket, a lot of people would do it.

I personally don't think that we should be happy to notice that.

I think I know what you think about the "important" laws and rules that rule our society, so just see me as your opposite

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Not entirely true. It is possible to work up largely by hard work (though it is a pretty tedious process compared to sucking your way up). The media industry is exclusive because it is pretty much about selling "face" rather than a physical product, so PR skills are crucial no matter at what level.

Being a talent working up to a star, and being an engineer working up to being a Nobel Prize winner, those things are mutually exclusive because effort is pumped in different areas.

Well, the awarding of the Nobel Prizes themselves are controversial, to say the least. Look at Einstein. He received the Prize for his theory on the photoelectric effect, but many would think that his theory of general relativity is more influential.
Also, by PR skills, I don't mean "sucking up". Treating people like dirt is hardly just.

Back to the topic, the business model has to change, like Narona and many others have noted. Hopefully, it'll stimulate the economy in ways we haven't thought of yet.