Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form 159

Posted by timothy
from the more-where-that-came-from dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form

Comments Filter:
  • So. (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @10:39PM (#28664963) Journal
    Do they have the internet in French prison?
    • Carla Bruni (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sarkozy will never give up on this because he's doing it for the love of his wife, Carla Bruni. The two first met at a function where Bruni had come to promote stronger intellectual property legislation. Bruni is an artist/singer who feels that artists are being hurt by copyright violators. She is the real brain behind the law.

  • Could be worse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Again (1351325) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @10:41PM (#28664965)
    At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt. This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing.
    • Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @10:56PM (#28665027)
      it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Again (1351325)

        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.

        • Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AHuxley (892839) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @12:45AM (#28665449) Homepage Journal
          Yes, linked to your ID card. "Papers please" at any new isp.
          You will have some life long HADOPI rating -0,1,2,3 and a * to show "caught but claims was hacked".
          Like the "No fly, no buy" in the USA, this will be a database you will not get off.
        • by siloko (1133863)

          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.

          Luckily that's not what was being proposed. ISP's are the good guys here, they tend to fight against **IAA (or their International equivilant) lobbied legislative changes if only to avoid the hassle and cost of becoming the internet's policemen. It is also worth noting that ANY law which requires court time is likely to be quickly changed if there are too many people cited because ultimately the public is not interested in putting alleged copyright infringers behind bars whereas they do want to see violent

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Dogtanian (588974)

            arguing that there is not enough court time to try Mr Serial Rapist because we are too busy trying Miss Downloaded Britney isn't going to cut it.

            Isn't it a bit unfortunate for those people to have such names? Particularly if (like most people) they were given them by their parents?

            Won't this prejudice any case against them?

            Also, in your example above you failed to explain what crimes these people actually committed. What if Mr. Serial Rapist had been downloading Britney Spears tracks, and Ms. Downloaded Britney was actually a serial rapist?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Hojima (1228978)

        Not entirely. Remember that there is technology to hide what you are truly doing on the internet. ISPs banning you on a whim is easy because they don't have to prove anything. Now you just have to say that you use an encrypted p2p video chat network (with high resolution or some other lie to cover up excessive seeding) and it will make the judge look really bad if he rubber stamps anything. Plus, you might be able to make an appeal. Still, I don't think this law will be tolerated for long if the other wasn'

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by value_added (719364)

        it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.

        What part of "can ... 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." didn't you get?

        First, I count 3 distinct options, not one mandatory "rubber stamp" option.

        Second, technical issues aren't typically relevant during sentencing, so I fail to see how "clueless judge" is anything more than inflammatory rh

      • Based on my experience and observation of courts, judges won't rubber stamp prison sentences. Instead, they will impose ridiculous fines, with the threat of prison for failure to pay the fines. The economy sucks, counties and parishes are looking for money, so fines will be imposed for spitting in public - or private, for that matter.

        It's been all about money for as long as I can remember, and things are getting tighter, and tighter.

        • Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @07:10AM (#28666471) Journal
          Note that this is not the USA. Judges in France are not elected and there is much stronger separation between the legislature and the judiciary. There is no incentive for judges to impose fines because their departments do not see the money. That's not to say that they won't make stupid decisions out of ignorance or malice, but greed is unlikely to be a motive.
      • by Dan541 (1032000)

        This is why I oppose copyright.

        What sort of fucked up world do we live in where you can be jailed because some media company accuses you?

        50 years ago this would not even happen in fiction.

        • This is why I oppose copyright.

          What sort of fucked up world do we live in where you can be jailed because some media company accuses you?

          I know this may come as a shock to many people around here, but it is possible to have copyright laws without violating due process or restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment.

          • it is possible to have copyright laws without violating due process or restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment.

            [citation needed] - seriously. I know that it used to be possible, but I think there's pretty clear evidence that the "intellectual property" lobby is now organised and will use any small thing you give them to demand more and more. Also that they tend to be capable of getting it. Can you show anywhere in the world where things like fair dealing / fair use are really being protected as they should be? Is there anywhere where the penalties for unlicensed copying are really propoortional and reasonable an

      • Re:Could be worse (Score:4, Insightful)

        by josiebgoode (754961) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:50AM (#28665959)
        Of course, there will be no prison time but you will not be able to defend yourself. If you say "It's not me. Someone took over my connection without my knowledge..." You will got a 1300 euros fine anyway if you have not installed a spying software that will hinder p2p connection. Even worse: they will try also to spy on e-mails.
        --
        "La Chine en a reve... Hadopi l'a fait..."
      • Fair enough, however, any Judges found to have broken the law (even once) should be subject to appropriate penalties ... I think the guillotine would be appropriate for France.
      • by Xest (935314)

        I'm not sure it is.

        The punishment means this has been defined as a serious offence. The level of evidence that can be provided by seeing an IP address in a swarm and linking that back to a specific individual simply by them being the internet subscribes is almost certainly not strong enough to secure such a conviction.

        I say almost certainly because I don't know French law or the French courts, I may be proven wrong because government corruption never ceases to amaze, but no sane judge should let someone go

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      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.

      I'm assuming a judge will also have the choice of NOT punishing the victim?

    • It's much worse now.

      Some EFF'esque group (quadrature de something, forgot what it was, someone help me out here) calculated that a judge would have about 5 minutes, tops, to read the accusation, ponder it and come to a verdict. I'm pretty sure they're already cutting the rubber stamps.

      And unlike an ISP, a judge can actually send you to jail.

    • by mariushm (1022195)

      The judge is supposed to give a ruling in 5 minutes... it's obvious no judge will have time to analyze the information received so it's just as bad as the previous law imho... they only changed the law by the tiniest amount so that it would pass

  • by vandy1 (568419) <.moc.cptcefrepa. .ta. .ydnav.> on Saturday July 11, 2009 @10:43PM (#28664975)

    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

    • by Arkan (24212) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @02:27AM (#28665745)

      The reality is bit uglier than what the article might say. When your IP will be caught exchanging one of the 10.000 referenced files on a p2p network - the HADOPI being the one who will be monitoring the p2p networks - this addendum to the three-strikes law will trigger the following events:
        - under a special, fast track process akin to the one followed for a speed ticket, the judge might order your ISP to cut your connexion, or (logical OR, not XOR) have you pay 1.500â. This is not a trial, it's a judge statement, and you'll have to go to court to defend yourself, but not before having your connexion cut and the fine paid. Btw, you'll still pay for the connexion that have been cut. You can get protection from this though: you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer. This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law
        - you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000â fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison
        - and then I don't see anything in the words of the proposed law that would prevent the copyright owner from suing you for lost revenue

      For the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network. The IP. Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed. Right?

      And soon, if LOPPSI goes through and you've used an encrypting bittorrent client, you'll also be sued under the premise that you're planning terrorist actions.

      The most fun part is that this addendum in it's current state allows for the HADOPI commission to "read" your - and I quote - "electronic communications". Not "p2p connexions", not "bittorrent connexions": "electronic communications". Email, web, IM, VOIP: it's electronic, it's scanned. The french government is just passing a law to get a legal eavedropping right on all national internet communications.

      I love being french those days...

      • by Jesus_666 (702802)
        There's always Quebéc (if you want to stay in a francophone area, otherwise there's the world). Seriously, with that kind of laws I'd really think about skipping town.
      • or (logical OR, not XOR)

        I recommend using "and/or" in that place. :)

        you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer. This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law

        So it's the classical scheme, that churches also use to make everyone obey them. But in this case, it goes like this:
        Everyone sooner or later will "break" that "law" (making him a sinner),
        so he will install the spyware (go confess his sins),
        which will magically free him from punishment (he will not go to hell).

        you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000€ fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison

        But you can still get punished. So the freedom from punishment is just an illusion to make you install the spyware.

        Sounds to me like a plot to bring a total

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11, 2009 @10:46PM (#28664985)

    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).

    • by Alsee (515537) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @01:28AM (#28665563) Homepage

      and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income

      Duh, haven't you read the financial impact studies from music industry? Putting these people in prison will prevent six hundred trillion dollars in piracy, which means eighty two hundred trillion in extra tax revenue to the government.

      -

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)

        Probably. But can you buy content in prison?

        I know your comment is in jest, but the content industry seems to think just that. The problem is, though, that the people copying are wholly a subset of the set "people who might buy content". Because, well, if they didn't want content (yes, such people exist), they wouldn't copy it either. Now, not everyone engaging in filesharing bought or would buy content (yes, there are people who refuse to buy anything), but the majority did, does and will do it. There are

        • by Alsee (515537)

          Those people will not buy anything when you lock them up or sue their pants off. Either way they can't buy anything from you.

          You don't get it. You just want to steal our stuff.
          These people are thieves, they're stealing our stuff and we're losing money. You have to put thieves in prison where they can't steal any more stuff and so they can't keep stealing our money from us.
          You're just another thief, and you're funding bin Laden and Hamas and other terrorists when you steal our music.
          Not only that, but P2P is

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @06:22AM (#28666339)

      According to a recent, anonymous study done in my country, if they catch everyone they'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.

      Time to build some more prisons, France. And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      The more people that are convicted mean more people lose their ( dwindling ) rights for life. That is the REAL goal here.

  • As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine, "So There! You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!" Or Monty Python's "Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries" Well at least they are willing to put up with our merde.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I am pretty sure it was Groundskeeper Willie that first said that cheese eating surrender monkeys line.

    • Cheese eating surrender monkeys, who surrendered to the RIAA (and the French equivalent).

  • by Husgaard (858362) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:13PM (#28665075)

    This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.

    This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases. The judge may not hear the parties involved, but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office. He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.

    Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.

    The law text passed the senate wednesday, and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.

    Links in french: Numerama [numerama.com] Le Monde [lemonde.fr]

    • by rastilin (752802)

      Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.

      On that note, how much effort is required to get a license to eavesdrop without the police looking over your shoulder, it sounds like someone could get into the e-mail of the people behind this relatively easily. Would be a great PR boost.

    • by Alsee (515537) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @01:42AM (#28665603) Homepage

      Here I sit thinking the US legislature is kinda like an elementary school teacher that's been fucking all the students in his class, and along comes your post about how your kid's elementary school teach has been fucking all his students *and* he's got crabs.

      It makes me feel ever-so-slightly better about our own legislature, in a nauseatingly sad way.

      -

    • If it fails this time they will probably try to change the constitution.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        And if it succeeds this time the whole of Europe is going to use it as a pretext to do the same. Mark my words.

        It'll soon be time to emigrate to somewhere sensible. I hear some countries manage to get along fine with very few laws.

    • How better to sum up in few words the 2 major socio-economic trends, growth sectors of the 21st century: entertainment and security. Navel feed our complacency and our fear of others. All excuses will be good to better enslave us. We will accept, even desire the loss of freedom to better satisfy our desire for pleasure, our narcissism, our brainless. But n'incriminons person, our own consumerist decadence us for this purpose

      I suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator, but

  • by mad flyer (589291) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:14PM (#28665077)

    This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.

    Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a "W Bush" card... constitution... that's just a piece of paper...

    I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...

    • by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:28PM (#28665139)
      atleast the french are likely to riot and turn over a few police cars to show their displeasure. american's will form a few facebook groups and register to show their outrage...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more civilized after all.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by plasmacutter (901737)

          Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more courageous after all.

          if I might also suggest this is true.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by plasmacutter (901737)

            whoops, forgot to remove the "not"

            Perhaps it isthe Europeans who are more courageous after all.

            • When you skip voting and participating in government and then decide things are suddenly not to your liking and then protest violently that is not courage. That is failure. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather do something violent than do something sane and boring like keeping a close watch on government to begin with.

              • When you skip voting and participating in government and then decide things are suddenly not to your liking and then protest violently that is not courage. That is failure. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather do something violent than do something sane and boring like keeping a close watch on government to begin with.

                Tell me which candidate to vote for in my nation (which is not canada or sweden) which is for the repeal of the DMCA, legalization of filesharing and marijuana, letting failed companies die, and stimulating the economy through "trickle up" rather than 'trickle down'.

                I don't hear you..

                people who don't vote actually ARE making a choice. They don't put "none of the above" on the ballots, so they leave the ballots blank.

                • That's what the "participating in government" part of my comment was about. It takes letter writing and peaceful agitation to keep a government honest and accountable. Politicians are going to interpret low voter turnout as a sign that they're doing a bad job. They'll likely take it as a sign that they're doing an OK job and that people are just apathetic.

                  • That's what the "participating in government" part of my comment was about. It takes letter writing and peaceful agitation to keep a government honest and accountable. Politicians are going to interpret low voter turnout as a sign that they're doing a bad job. They'll likely take it as a sign that they're doing an OK job and that people are just apathetic.

                    In the US there are two major parties, moderate centerist corporate sellouts and ultra-fascist corporate sellouts.

                    Most others can't even get on the ballot.

                    They know damn well they can ignore your letters, most responses are form letters telling you why you, the constituent being represented, are wrong and need to be "set right" by the elected official.

                    so are you saying I should, as a liberal, be voting ultra-fascist instead of centerist? Exactly what do you suggest that will actually make a difference?

      • Nearly all those big French demonstrations you see are motivated by unions or by the left wing parties. I'd be surprised if they gave a shit about this law, and I'm not sure there'll be a big enough public outcry for people to do so spontaneously.

        Hopefully (for France AND Europe's sake) I'm mistaken.

    • Simple. Because you do not put them there. (If "you" is someone under the government of that politician.)

      Yes. That's your job. Because justice is not only blind, but also working for that politician.

  • Should soon be heard around France in response to this law.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ... become so bourgeois?

  • by syncrotic (828809) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:40PM (#28665187)

    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.

  • Offtopic...... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ZiakII (829432) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:49PM (#28665219)

    I know this is offtopic, but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12, 2009 @01:55AM (#28665647)

      Not just that. I always wonder what an Anonymous Cowardon is. Is it like a simpleton aka Slashdot programmer, or what?

      Have you tried getting _all_ comments to show with a single click without being logged in? As in, don't drag a slider and click dozens of times on "More". That would really help on a mobile device.

      But whatever, fucking Slashdot is unusable on anything under 2GHz anyway. Seriously, has anyone tried using /. on Opera mobile? Rendering takes fucking ages.

      QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOU WANNABE SLASHDOT CRACK WHORES AND HIRE SOME PROS TO FIX THE FUCKING SITE.

  • How much do these top guys get payed for this, by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything. Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel. It's the same as me, making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold. Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall... When will people finally stand up to this abuse? (everythin
    • It's far easier this time, Sarkozy's wife is Carla Bruni, a singer and songwriter. It's all a family matter.

      In other words, it takes nepotism to a whole new level.

  • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:59PM (#28665261)

    fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)

    "Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."

    • fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)

      "Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."

      You'd be found in contempt. They're clearly looking for "300,000" written on a piece of paper.

    • by arkhan_jg (618674)

      Don't be silly! They're after 300â.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12, 2009 @12:01AM (#28665265)

    Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet, waging illegal war, torture, etc.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Exactly, when was the last time you heard about heavy metals?
      Just another law to reach into the home life and make you fear the internet, or turn it off for political activists.
      Be fun for the French version of the "Forward Intelligence Teams" (UK police forces that use cameras, camcorders and audio recorders to conduct overt surveillance of the public) to turn off your net too.
      Back from a protest and you get your first warning email.
      A week later the next, then no more net for you.
  • by youn (1516637) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @01:08AM (#28665509) Homepage

    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..
    1) rootkits
    2) region locking ... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want
    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. ....

  • by carlzum (832868) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @02:00AM (#28665661)
    The idea of a "3 strikes" law makes me irate. Murders', rapists', and child molesters' past offenses are assessed during sentencing, but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense. Of course, someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases. If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
    • These laws exist for a reason and the reason is simple. To stop the career criminals. The entire point of jail is to STOP you from commiting the crime again.

      The idea with the 3 strikes rule is that you had 1 warning and 2nd warning and now it is enough. You had 3 changes to obey the law, now the patience of society is up.

      Your kind seems to think that people should be able to continue to break the same law all their lifes.

      Tell me something, after how many times must a drunk driver be fined before his driv

    • Dunno about your country, in mine a murder sentence is already "for life" (only possible guilty verdict for murder 1st, too). So the first strike is already enough to make sure you won't get a second.

      And, despite being the liberal that I am, I somehow don't think it's excessive...

  • text of law (Score:3, Informative)

    by belmolis (702863) <billposer@@@alum...mit...edu> on Sunday July 12, 2009 @02:12AM (#28665697) Homepage

    For those who read French, here [senat.fr] is the actual text of the law.

  • Dilemma (Score:2, Funny)

    by mr100percent (57156) *

    Which would you rather have, be banned from the internet for life, or serve two years in prison? I figure nearly all the /.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit.

    • If they have internet in prison...

      It wouldn't really change a lot of the average geek, would it? I mean, it's not like we'd spend a lot of time out of the apartment anyway, if we didn't have to go to work.

    • Would you rather eat feces or roaches?

      It's called a false dichotomy, genius.

  • Details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by uffe_nordholm (1187961) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @05:23AM (#28666169)
    Like so often before, the devil is in the details.

    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!
    • You make an intresting point. It is not just families but anyone with a shared connection.

      But what you fail to understand is that we the citizens are fighting an enemy who does not CARE about rights and laws. Disney is an evil coorperation who used copyright to avoid having to pay royalties on Pinocio but wants royalties on said cartoon to be extended infinitly. They don't want copyright law respected. They want to control all media and the law is just a tool in their arsenal. If they could get away with u

  • Laws based on baseball rules ("three strikes and you're out") or morality based on "cowboys and indians" games ("we are the good guys and you are the bad guys") seem to be fine when you're 8 years old. But for adults in the real world? Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.

    The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Dogtanian (588974)

      Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.

      "We"? Who is "we"? You talk like the American public and their way of thinking are the same as that of the rest of the world.

      And which George Bush? Because I can assure you that from where I was sitting, Dubya's arrogant, bullying and downright childish "with us or against us" mentality was every bit as laughable- and he's only been out of office for six months. So don't get too self-congratulatory and blase about having voted Obama in and left all that behind- it's still largely the same American public

  • by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday July 12, 2009 @07:50AM (#28666613) Journal

    This is just Sarközy trying to save face. This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one, and it's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more, and worse. For instance, they've added a crime for not securing one's internet connection, punished by a hefty fine. Given that it is impossible to achieve 100% security, even for a security professional, it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.

    They still don't care that it's technically impossible. They believe their own bullshit.

    Everyone knows this won't pass the CC. Even most of the majority. (Many are not pleased that Sarkoléon is marching them towards the cliff, but they are good little soldiers, like GOP congressmen under Bush. Which is fitting, considering how Sarközy got elected by applying Rove's methods.) The Council was damning in its first rejection. Not only did it nuke the damn thing's only mean of coercion, charitably leaving the useless part standing; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future.

  • Seriously. This sounds like they now just had to buy some judges, who will just do what Sarkozy tells them.

  • I suspect this one'll get knocked down on the same grounds as the last one: it places the decision of guilt or innocence in an administrative body that isn't following judicial rules, and just handing selection of the sentence over to a judge isn't sufficient to cure that flaw. I think the only way HADOPI will fly is if their either hand the determination of guilt over to a real court or make the administrative body follow all the procedures of a real court including the presumption of innocence and placing

  • by HuguesT (84078) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @12:21PM (#28667905)

    Sorry, the summary is bad.

    The new proposed law is *not* slightly altered. Several main points make is somewhat more acceptable :

    1- the internet subscriber is presumed innocent as per the French constitution. The word of the "HADOPI" authority carry no judicial weight other than a denunciation. The courts will have to do their own fact finding, and they are not likely to be satisfied by a mere IP number matching that of the subscriber.
    2- The internet subscriber can defend him/herself before any punishment is meted out. In the previous version, the internet connexion was summarily cut, and only then could the subscriber complain and argue his/her innocence.

    Most importantly, the decision is now up to a judge. One has to remember that judges are not at all friends of the current French government. Their budget have been cut, their power have been diminished, they are already overworked. It is not likely that judges will favour the Sarkozy approach, which is to punish early, punish often.

    My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law. The new law is 99.9% inapplicable in practice. There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government's plan. Plus people are *very* likely to put up a good fight, like they have done everywhere. There are no possible settlement.

    Soon the entertainment industry will realise that they have been wasting their time all along, and that they will eventually have to offer what everybody wants, which is a cheap, effective, legal system, be it unecumbered VOD, global licence, whatever . Otherwise they will die, simple as that.

    • by Fruny (194844)

      My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law. The new law is 99.9% inapplicable in practice. There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government's plan. Plus people are *very* likely to put up a good fight, like they have done everywhere. There are no possible settlement.

      As I understand it, the plan is to use the same expedited process as for parking or speeding tickets, which has little trouble dealing with thousands of violations each month. In that regard, IP logs might be admitted in the same way as photographic evidence from speed-trap cameras.

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...