Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe 265

Posted by timothy
from the vive-l'somethingeruther dept.
quanticle writes "As you may recall, France previously threatened to cut off broadband access for file sharers. However, after lobbying by the public, the legislation failed in the National Assembly. Now, the government of Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to revive the the measure by pushing it as an amendment to the pan-European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe

Comments Filter:
  • by Ryan1984 (1316783) on Friday July 04, 2008 @07:45AM (#24057329)
    Lobbying from the PUBLIC seems to have an effect there.
    • by phayes (202222)

      Both you & the article submitter are mistaken.
      As the three strike law has not been withdrawn is on it's way to becoming a law by the end of this summer. France has more than it's share of unpopular laws being passed by a ruling class disconnected from what the public wants.

  • For fuck's sake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Friday July 04, 2008 @07:46AM (#24057333)

    Why are politicians so retarded?

    You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

    • Re:For fuck's sake (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Krneki (1192201) on Friday July 04, 2008 @07:50AM (#24057365)
      They represent whoever pays for their election campaign, they don't give a damn about people as long as it doesn't affect their vote too much.
      • Re:For fuck's sake (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lafeek (1213360) on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:03AM (#24057423)

        In France, the money for presidential campaigns comes from taxes, is limited, and of the same amount for every candidate. But if you got less than 5% of votes, you have to give back this money to the government (this can be painful).

        • Re:For fuck's sake (Score:4, Informative)

          by Lafeek (1213360) on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:08AM (#24057453)

          Oh, and I forgot to say that they all have the right to the same amount of time on TV. And all of this is controlled and enforced.

          (Well, that is in theory.)

        • Re:For fuck's sake (Score:5, Insightful)

          by digitig (1056110) on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:40AM (#24057695)

          And there is no way that lobbyists could get around this by lobbying the opinion formers (eg, the press) rather than by directly funding the political campaigns, is there?

          • by Carewolf (581105)

            And there is no way that lobbyists could get around this by lobbying the opinion formers (eg, the press) rather than by directly funding the political campaigns, is there?

            Of course there is, but they don't; maybe because they haven't got the idea, because their morale is too high, or because they are afraid it would backlash their candidate.

            I think the main difference between elections in the US and Europe is not the amount of regulation, but the amount of shit the electors tolerate.

            • by digitig (1056110)

              I think the main difference between elections in the US and Europe is not the amount of regulation, but the amount of shit the electors tolerate.

              The amount of shit most of the UK electorate is willing to take appears to be however much the media tells them to, and I'd guess it's the same in the USA. Glad to hear that it isn't so in France.

    • by incabulos (55835)

      On the other hand, there will be a certain malicious delight in seeing this proto-fascist slimeball force this law through backed by hefty bribes from media companies, only to watch Frances economy shut down. When all DNS records become illegal to serve up for access, when all index.htmls and the servers they live on become illegal, and essentially the internet in France is switched off over night.

      Its nearly as silly as mandating CPUs lacking CPY or MOV, or operating systems that cannot open or copy files.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You just don't get it do you? These days politics is all about getting brownie points for when you are out of office. Three or four directorships of big companies will rapidly make up for the less than stellar political earnings. Some might look at this as a just reward - Why not see it as it is. It is bribery of a public official. The significant difference is that the pay-day is deferred some years and comes disguised as a seat on a board.....Usually with a bunch of crooks who have taken the same bait.
    • by digitig (1056110)

      Why are politicians so retarded?

      You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

      Wrong.

      De jure they are there to represent the people. De facto they are there to represent their own self-interest. When these come into conflict (which is the normal state), de facto will win. The politicians are not "retarted" or "wrong", they're doing exactly what is built into the system. No, I don't know of a better system, but at least regognising that this behaviour is built-in leads to less political surprises, and gives (some) politicians credit for intelligence if not honour.

    • You are there to represent the people and your country.

      That's correct.

      If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public...

      This is where you go off the rails. The job of a politician is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- to implement the "will of the people". That's because they can't. Everyone has a different opinion on what should be done. For example, you think your opinion on filesharing should supersede everyone else's. Believe it or not, a LOT of people think sharing copyrighted material should be

  • At a technical level this appears similar to China's Internet meddling in that it will always be defeatable and the chances of being caught are never going to be especially high. Given that, what is the point?
    • This is just going to be yet another arms race, although the stakes are quite a bit higher for the consumers this time.
  • Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:13AM (#24057487)

    The french law project which establishes an independant authority with power to ban users from the Internet (by cutting the Internet access) after three strikes has not failed to pass in the National Assembly : IT STILL HASN'T BEEN EXAMINED THERE !

    It is scheduled to be examined soon by the Senate first and then eventually by the National Assembly. You can read it there in french : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl07-405.html

    What is true is that right now the French ISP association (including every french ISP), the web services association (including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and such), the commission in charge of regulating telecommunications, the commission in charge of the defense of privacy and several others have all said they were against this law.

    Besides, even though I can imagine Nicolas Sarkozy being pleased if there were european legislation copying his ideas, I don't see any particular lobbying from his part in the European Parliament. Just look at the amendments and who wrote them (in the IMCO, ITRE or LIBE committee).

    http://www.laquadrature.net/files/amendements-compromis_ITRE-IMCO_7juil/

    And I'm not even speaking of the usual fierce independance of MEP toward national governments. They're much nicer with regular lobbying groups, in this case the music and movie industries.

    • What the fuck are "three strikes" ... I gave up reading after I was at your posting as I simply don't even get what this fuss is about ;D sorry.

      Plx enlighten me and explain the Article and stop using jargon on matters that seem as important as this one.

      angel'o'sphere

  • by PacoCheezdom (615361) on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:21AM (#24057541)
    This rule would still have to be approved by the European Parliament for it to become law. If you're an EU citizen, do like the FA says and write your MEP:

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members.do?language=EN [europa.eu]

    drill down the map until you get to the member page; there are three postal addresses at the bottom of page. I'd either write to them in Brussels or their constituency address, since they're only usually in Strasbourg once a month. There's an email contact too, at the top.

    On a side note, I've actually been in the mailroom at the EP building in Brussels, and it's really nice. It's in a prominent position right on one of the main corridors between the offices and the hemicycle.
    • by Tryfen (216209)

      If you're in the UK, you can use Write To Them [writetothem.com] to email all you MEPs at once.

      I've done it and had two positive responses so far.

  • by fgaliegue (1137441) on Friday July 04, 2008 @08:43AM (#24057713)

    Because I am.

    Curiously, some French politicians are brilliant, but they're not part of the French government.

    A French "European deputy" (for lack of a better name) has opposed this three-strike legislation, arguing (rightly so imho) that "an industry that is not able to make do with new consumer habits [the Internet]" shouldn't impose its rules to the government. The French government hasn't listened.

    Michel Rocard is famous for opposing software patents. The French government hasn't listened.

    French automobile club leaders, the least of which is not the president of the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest, supervising the 24 hours of Le Mans) said that the pollution tax is a mistake, because one already exists and that's the TIPP (Taxe Intérieure sur les Produits Pétroliers, Internal Tax on Petrol-derived Goods, for lack of a batter name) that one pays for each centilitre of gasoline/Diesel in the tank, and that there's no reason than a guy driving only 3000 miles a year in his Ferrari should pay more than one driving ten times that in his Diesel Renault Logan. The French government doesn't listen.

    Just, where has common sense gone?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by damienl451 (841528)
      The consumer habits change argument is hardly convincing. Copyright law does indeed secure a source of income for artists but it is not the rationale for its existence. At the root, the idea is that a temporary monopoly over one's works is necessary to motivate artists to devote time to creating new works.

      If it were simply a change in consumer habits, I'd happily say laissez-faire . If people are not interested in music anymore, let record companies disappear! Here, however, we are faced with a slightly d

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        In the absence of copyright law, the amount of music created would not be the socially optimal one. Fewer people would choose a career in music (and, contrary to popular misconceptions, it is not true that genuinely talented individuals would play anyway -- you can be incredibly talented and motivated by profit, romantic myths notwithstanding), less good music would be made (since record companies would have less money to spend on new artists), etc.

        This is where you are 100% wrong. A 99% reduction in pro

        • by cliffski (65094)

          "This is where you are 100% wrong. A 99% reduction in production of what currently passes as "art" would have no impact whatsoever as the only thing that profit motive motivates is utter kitsch."

          says who?

          Do you atcually KNOW the neural activity of everyone who produces entertainment content? Of course you fucking don't. You have *no idea* whether Jane Austen wrote mainly for the money, or whether Sean Connery only acted for the cash. You just like to tell yourself that everyone who has talent in terms of en

          • Do you atcually KNOW the neural activity of everyone who produces entertainment content? Of course you fucking don't. You have *no idea* whether Jane Austen wrote mainly for the money, or whether Sean Connery only acted for the cash.

            I see. So let me get this straight: you believe that the motivating force for true artistic expression is money? That an "artist" does not feel a need to express himself until a silk-suited agent of a media conglomerate shows up with a contract that "will make you rich beyond a

            • by cliffski (65094)

              "until a silk-suited agent of a media conglomerate shows up"

              "Given that Spielberg hasn't produced any art in his entire life (and probably couldn't if his life depended on it"

              God you are pathetic. let me try in capitals.

              DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL CREATIVE PEOPLE WORK FOR BIG MEGA CONGLOMERATES?

              DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UNLIKE ELITIST PRICKS SUCH AS YOURSELF TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE APPRECIATE PEOPLE LIKE STEPHEN SPIELBERG?

              If you don't like popular culture, then fine, fuck off and enjoy your Frenc

              • DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL CREATIVE PEOPLE WORK FOR BIG MEGA CONGLOMERATES?

                That is why you focused on Spielberg and Connery (apart from your self-inflicted counter-example of Austen)! Logic apparently was never your strong suite.

                DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UNLIKE ELITIST PRICKS SUCH AS YOURSELF TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE APPRECIATE PEOPLE LIKE STEPHEN SPIELBERG?

                The fact that people like stuff produced by Spielberg's minions for which he takes credit does not make any of it "art". People also like t

  • You people had better not be sharing that illegal copy of Linux distro on your file sharing software!!! Three times you share that and we'll shut you down and ban you from any Internet connections for the rest of your life!!!

  • Sarkozy (le sarcôme) is a yankee-sucking scumbag. He is pretty well all-aligned with the americans, thanks to his bourgeois and scientology connections. And the fact that he married a showbiz slut gives him a dangerous exposure to the "media" "industry", hence his lopsided approach to the subject.

    A telling fact is that his popularity after one year in office has plumetted to levels never seen in France.

  • ...European issues, particularly issues of transparency. I'm glad the Irish had the guts to throw away the stupid mistake that was the Lissabon pact. It would have reduced transparency a lot (come on, 200+ pages of legalese as a constitution?! You've got to be kidding!), which we need more of and not less! In most countries in the EU, the EU and the way it operates seems to be a distant thing, barely interrupting the constant stream of local politics. The positions some parties take on European issues are o
  • I thought the French had (marginally) more sense than the anglosphere in their choice of politician. Sarkozy just strikes me as a neoconservative dick.
    • Yes, this is sad.

      How was he elected? First, the opposition (Ségolène Royal) was unable to talk properly and had a fucking irritating voice and no mind of her own. She was bad, very bad. Sensed people still voted for her at the second turn because we knew who or more appropriately what Sarkozy was and is (you put it right, a "neoconservative dick" but he may be worse than just a dick, he is a very dangerous man). Hands down the worst President France ever had. But, obviously, Ségolène R
    • What a wonderful irony. After all the complaints by Europeans about the US and its president they end up with somebody WORSE.

      LOL.

  • by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Friday July 04, 2008 @10:28AM (#24058497) Journal

    Is baseball that popular in France?

  • Isn't Sarkozy the chap who has a big announcement/idea/plan every minute of the day and absolutely none of them actually go anywhere?

    Is so, then nothing to see here, folks, keep moving along.

  • We want to stop piracy, but instead of investing energy in sales, we invest energy in piracy (or actually, moving it further and deeper underground).

    Next thing we know we'll have a piracy mob, prepared to kill to make sure they are not exposed! How nice.

    Does the music industry even care? Of course not! All they care about is their falling profits. Well, they'll keep falling, because they're making sure the people will hate them (and thus avoid buying their products or working for them).

  • What's for sure is that if the corrupt measure came into law, the ass-licking British will be the ones that will implement it to-the-letter, just like all the other idiot EU laws - "to be good Europeans", and will be the only idiot country* to bother implementing it.

    * Yes I know Britain is a collection of countries not just one country.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...