French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form 159
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "The French Senate has once again approved a reworked version of the country's controversial 'three strikes' bill designed to appease the Constitutional Council. Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders, judges will have the final say over punishment. The approval comes exactly one month after the country's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Création et Internet law. ... Not content to let the idea die, President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council — instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike, it will now report offenders to the courts. A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence."
Could be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
The court gets all of 3 options, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds to me like saying that the defendant doesn't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up, but I know nothing up French law... I know remarkably little about US law, either, since IANAL.
Since there is no article linked in the summary, how long before someone links one in?
Cheers
Two years prison time. Lovely (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly, so something that is "moderate" ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed (original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed "cracking tools" like a debugger or the strings command). First, it was three strikes, now prison time. France doesn't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up, but all this would do is put non violent people in prison, and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income, especially for something that is a white coller issue).
Re:Could be worse (Score:2, Interesting)
it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.
Good point. And switching ISPs after receiving two strikes won't help you out.
Still, I do not like the idea of an ISP having the right to terminate services because they don't like the amount of download that I may be doing.
A war of attrition... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time you think you've defeated a bad law, it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle. Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent, while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes. Especially today, when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.
And thus corruption and greed prevail; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of.
Re:Offtopic...... (Score:1, Interesting)
I have this problem with Firefox 3.0.11 too.
3 strikes law for unpassed laws (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote, they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we'd do away with frivolous passing of laws, wasting tons of debate time in the parliament, where the whole country's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity (the original goal of copyright) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done, it'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.
Seriously something is wrong with the system. Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide. Among deceptive practices that should be punished.. ... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want .... ....
1) rootkits
2) region locking
3) RIAA trials - justice system flooding, racketeering like practices, deception, borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws, waste of public/ defendant ressource, unfair trials
4) Law keeps changing, increasingly detrimental to consumers
5) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it, life + 70... wtf? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating.
Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)
Details (Score:5, Interesting)
While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.
For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet. I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off. That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.
Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet. I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life. It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...
Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files. I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so? In my opinion, no. Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.
Fourthly, what of family members? Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement. What of my wife and my children? As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home. So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?
For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing. The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!
Re:Carla Bruni (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruni is an artist/singer.
Please, call her anything but that. She has next to no musical talent.
She's just a model who got the idea into her head she can sing. Her songs are truly sleep inducing.