Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media Music Government Politics Your Rights Online

France to Legalize File Sharing 446

Posted by Zonk from the viva-la-france? dept.
quenting writes "In the debate around the anti-piracy bill, the French Parliament voted yesterday into law an amendment to the DADVSI bill that allows free sharing of music and movies over the internet, considering the downloaded files as a private copy. This decision goes against the French government and the music industry's recommendations, who argue the deputies only wanted to show their independence from the government. The initial bill's detractors who pushed for this amendment want a tax for author rights to be paid by everyone on the ISP fees." The French government has vowed to fight this decision (babelfish link).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France to Legalize File Sharing More

France to Legalize File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • About time that someone gives the recording industry the middle finger.

    • Re:I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mmalove ( 919245 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:34AM (#14317135)
      "About time someone gives the recording industry the middle finger" ..... Ok, while I agree with the statement, a 5 - Insightful?!?! ..... There seems to be a growing trend that you can do anything legally as long as you live in the right country at the time : abortion, file sharing, pot smoking, drinking under 21, euthanasia - all legal but in differing countries. Oh, and none of them in the self proclaimed land of the free.

    • I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours!

      Good man yourself... are you sure your government will let you do that? I mean they spent a lot of cash on brainwashing you to dislike France because they wouldn't join your half cocked crusade, they might be upset at the waste of their money!

      • they spent a lot of cash on brainwashing you to dislike France because they wouldn't join your half cocked crusade

        Not my half-cocked crusade, mate. Bush won by less than 3%. Nearly half of us over here know he's a lying bastard.

        Life in Pre-Revolutionary America is an interesting experience.

    • Re:I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ndtechnologies ( 814381 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:42AM (#14317188)
      Yeah, I've been trying to give them the finger for over 3 years now, but I guess it hasn't done any good! The funny thing is, File-Sharing can be a great tool for the distribution of music. It's just a matter of utilizing it in a way that will allow both the artist and the listener to benefit from it.

      With our online music store, we are going to be utilizing BitTorrent technology for the distribution of some of our music.

      About 2 years ago, there was a Music Industry meeting here in Nashville, and the President of Sony Music Nashville was quoted as saying "our biggest mistake was shutting down Napster", now take that for what it's worth, but it does say something.
    • "About time that someone gives the recording industry the middle finger."

      "...The initial bill's detractors who pushed for this amendment want a tax for author rights to be paid by everyone on the ISP fees."

      Frankly, this is dealing with the devil to pay Paul before curiosity killed the cat ...Ok, nevermind that, but this ammendment assumes everybody is guilty of usurping copyrighted material. In fact, you will be taxed no matter what the content of your file tranfers, even if you have never used P2P software

      • Re:I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anne Honime ( 828246 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:07AM (#14317437)
        Ok, nevermind that, but this ammendment assumes everybody is guilty of usurping copyrighted material. In fact, you will be taxed no matter what the content of your file tranfers, even if you have never used P2P software in your life.

        The law states that the tax will be declarative : you want to copy, you pay the tax, you don't, you pay nothing (but there are chances you'll be monitored a bit ...)

    • Re:I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "The French government has vowed to fight this decision (babelfish link)."

      LOL, they said France and fight in the same sentence.

      This just in...

      France surrenders to Kazzaa...
    • I hereby suspend my France-Bashing for 24 hours

      TFA says:

      The amendment, which is attached to a bill on intellectual property rights, states that ``authors cannot forbid the reproduction of works that are made on any format from an online communications service when they are intended to be used privately'' and not for commercial use.

      I am no copyright lawyer, but somewhere it does not seem for the inverse to make sense. Meaning, how could authors forbid the reproduction of works that are intended to be used p

  • Serves them right for pushing their luck. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:11AM (#14316965)
    The French Parliment over-reacted here, but it's good to see that the kind of ridiculous measures requested by record companies and their ilk are resulting in equally ridiculous responses from those who disagree. Given the way politics seems to work these days (argue for a few years then go for a 50/50 compromise) then France might wind up with sensible legislation taken from the middle-ground.

    • Re:Serves them right for pushing their luck. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:22AM (#14317045)

      The French Parliment over-reacted here, but it's good to see that the kind of ridiculous measures requested by record companies and their ilk are resulting in equally ridiculous responses from those who disagree.


      I like to think of it more as glimpse of the future the music and movie industries will face if they keep treating all thier customers as potential theives. Eventually they'll piss off so many people that no amount of money will protect them.

    • Re:Serves them right for pushing their luck. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Thomas Miconi ( 85282 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:18PM (#14318860)
      A short summary of events:

      1) The (gaullist, center-right) government proposes a bill which implements the EU directive on copyright. The proposed bill is essentially a DMCA-light: circumvention of copy-protection devices is forbidden, but the copy-protection systems must allow for legally recognised exceptions to copyright (such as private copies for personal of family use). Note that making a small number of private copies is explicitly legal in France, and we already pay a tax on blank media for this.

      2) Two "députés" (representatives), from the main centre-left and centre-right parties, introduce amendments to the effect of mandating "global licensing": introduce a tax on broadband internet access (about 5 to 9 euros per month), in exchange for making unlimited, not-for-profit filesharing legal. The product of this tax is then redistribute to artists (how ? nobody knows). The government voices its opposition to the amendments.

      3) The amendments are adopted. This is a very rare event: many members of the gaullist party voted against the wishes of the gaullist government. All parties were divided on the issue, but in the end a majority of lawmakers present at the time supported the amendments. This unexpected rebellion indicates widespread discontent from lawmakers about the bill.

      4) The government makes it clear that it wants the amendments rescinded. As the Minister for Culture said, "with the global license system, no one has found an acceptable system of redistribution (for the money collected through the tax)". Media publishers in general oppose the amendments. Artists and rights-collecting societies (French equivalents for the RIAA) are divided, with a majority against them. Consumer associations, however, express clear support.

      5) Although the amendments were adopted, the law itself will only be voted on in a few days. In the meantime, the government is expected to exert pressure on the lawmakers (at least on those of the center-right party) to make them reject the amendments. So no, sharing copyrighted material is not yet definitely legal in .fr, and there will probably be some changes in the law before the definitive version is passed. I wouldn't want to bet money on the final outcome.

      Thomas-

  • France didn't actually surrender to something (not yet at least)!
    • France didn't actually surrender to something (not yet at least)!

      Yes, but a couple weeks ago we learned that all it takes to capture Paris [wikipedia.org] these days is sticks and rocks. One sufficently angry record exec with a 2'x4' with a nail through it should be enough to reverse the legislation.

  • Wording?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by cyberbob2010 ( 312049 ) <cyberbob2010@techie.com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:13AM (#14316978) Homepage Journal
    I think they probably could have worded this a little better. They are making it sound like these "deputies" are not a part of the government as the "government" is going to fight them. It is not as if these are some rebels in the foot hills making their own laws.

    • Re:Wording?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpaceAdmiral ( 869318 )
      In many countries around the world, "Government" refers to the "Executive" branch. That's what they are doing here and the wording is perfectly fine.

      I can understand why that would be confusing for Americans, though. Hope that helps.

    • Re:Wording?? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by El Cabri ( 13930 )
      It is a too-litteral translation of the French terms : "deputy" is for "député", who is a member of the lower house of parliement, the National Assembly. "government" here strictly means the executive branch of government, more precisely, the prime minister's cabinet (the president, even though he is part of the executive, is usually not considered part of what is covered by the word "gouvernement").

  • Bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:13AM (#14316981) Journal
    This could set precedent to undermine copyright as a whole. In which case, I predict we'll start seeing things like proprietary derivatives of GPL software emerge and not get challenged.

    Unless a new paradigm for duplication and distribution of digital works is created, we need copyright to be enforced in all cases in order to protect free software.

    • Re:Bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:20AM (#14317031)
      "In which case, I predict we'll start seeing things like proprietary derivatives of GPL software emerge and not get challenged. "

      In the absence of copyright law, what does 'proprietary' mean?

      I thought the GPL was a legalistic hack to protect the ethical right to share information. If the government goes and legalises that, then the GPL becomes almost, but not quite, entirely redundant.
      • How is the GPL going to force me to open up the sourcecode when the law backing it no longer exists? The GPL does exist as a means to 'protect the ethical right to share information' (not that I agree that sourcecode is information) but not jsut the binaries but the sourcecode as well. Under the OP scenario, copyright no longer exists as a force to make me open my sourcecode up under the terms of the GPL.
        • True. It's won't be as easy to use copyright law as a stick to force people to open up the sourcecode. Of the four software freedoms, the (legal) freedom to use the sourcecode to modify the code is the one that won't be automatic if copyright law suddenly evaporates - it's also the freedom which is generally least used, in practice, which is why I hedged my original post with the phrase 'almost, but not entirely,'.

          I'm still not sure whether I was right to use the word 'almost', since it's certainly not imme

        • Re:Bad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Alsee ( 515537 )
          not that I agree that sourcecode is information

          Huh? Did you mis-write that? Did I mis-read that? Or did you actually claim that sourcecode is somehow NOT information?

          Under the OP scenario, copyright no longer exists as a force to make me open my sourcecode up under the terms of the GPL.

          True, but it is expected that that would be far less of an issue. Pretty much all commonity software would be open source. There is very little incentive and ability to produce closed source versions (as people could redistri

      • Re:Bad idea... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Mo Bedda ( 888796 )
        I thought the GPL was a legalistic hack to protect the ethical right to share information. If the government goes and legalises that, then the GPL becomes almost, but not quite, entirely redundant.

        Your ethical right to share your own information has never been in danger. You could always release to the public domain. The GPL prevents you from taking the shared information, using it, and distributing it but not sharing the result. OSS certainly benefits from the GPL, but it does not require it.

        But t

      • Re:Bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:24PM (#14318931) Homepage Journal

        In the absence of copyright law, what does 'proprietary' mean?

        No source. I suppose you could hack on the binary all you want; knock yourself out. Smart vendors would tie their code to their stuff, so you couldn't run it without buying it.

    • Re:Bad idea... (Score:3, Informative)

      by SerpentMage ( 13390 )
      Is this an undermining of copyright? I think not. In the article the following paragraph says it all.

      "Legal music downloading sites such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes have French-language sites, as do major music companies such as Vivendi Universal SA. Last night's amendment would allow someone having bought a song from one of those sites to share it with family or friends."

      I still think that general peer to peer networks a'la Kaaza would be in hot water. What I think the law is trying to get at is the
    • This could set precedent to undermine copyright as a whole.

      France never had, doesn't have, and surely won't have a notion of 'copyright' in the law ; that's completely alien to us. We *do* have intellectual property, but it's absolutely not the same thing as your copyright. Main difference : an author, in France has some perpetual rights on his work that he just can't sell to anyone (producer et al.), and that he only can use anytime after the release of his work, even after selling distributions' right

    • Protect it from what?

      If some frenchman starts selling a slightly-modified version of some piece of Free software, how does that impinge on my ability to use the original version?

    • Re:Bad idea... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by parodyca ( 890419 )
      I predict we'll start seeing things like proprietary derivatives of GPL software emerge and not get challenged.

      Maybe, but it will all be free software. You wont be able to exploit it commercially without following the terms of the GPL. Just as you wont be able to exploit (sell) commercial software or music or whatever, without following those terms.

      This seems reasonable to me. So what if the GPL loses some of its wind. If copyright laws are less powerful, the GPL does not need to blow so hard.
    • I wish I had moderation points for you today. Well said!

  • It will not pass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:14AM (#14316985)
    I am French, I know how the government works there, and I can tell it will not pass. There is going to be a second reading of the law, and the amendments voted for the "legal license" to download stuff will be removed. Some guys from the ruling party have voted for the amendments, and the government is going to sanction them for that; hence at the next session they will simply be removed.

    And if by chance the amendments are still present when the law is voted at the parliament, it is going to be cancelled by the Senate.

    Welcome to democracy folks. This is just an advertizing "coup" from the opposition party. In the end, we'll get DMCA too (possibly a worse version of it). I know. I'm from there.
    • I know. I'm from there.

      Shouldn't that be "here," or are you living outside France?

    • Oh, tell them about the EU constitution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:34AM (#14317139) Journal
      'Goverment' also wanted to push that through. The voter didn't go for it. Not in france, not in holland (where I am from).

      There is a backlash going on with the voter not taking it anymore. I am not that familiar with france (language barrier) but I do get the impression that it has much the same problems as holland. With a cultural elite (media and politics) having put themselves in ivory towers where they can keep telling each other everything is alright while the real world is going to hell.

      Holland had Pim Fortyun and Theo van Gogh and their murderers who upset this carefully constructed fantasy world. France had the recent riots and the continuing rise of extreme right.

      With the EU constition it became painfully clear that the politicians were totally removed from the real world. They just could not get that the voters were not going to vote it through just because they told them to.

      I think this "protest" vote is a sign that even certain circles of goverment are beginning to realize that something is wrong.

      To dismiss this as simply a publicity stunt is cheap. It is like calling the EU constition rejection a cheap stunt by the voters, no this is a way to tell the direct leaders of a country to get their act together. The NEW rules proposed are bad for the public and this was one way to make it painfully clear that there is resistance. Sometimes you have to shoot people in the face to get their attention.

      Of course the problem is that the media who are supposed to tell us about these kind of things are the people behind the whole DMCA and similar crap.

      But still it is good to see some resistance. I think this battle is far from over. If your leaders got a brain they will not want to have another disaster like the referendum. Of course if they had a brain none of this would have happened in the first place.

      • "It is like calling the EU constition rejection a cheap stunt by the voters, no this is a way to tell the direct leaders of a country to get their act together."I'm sorry, but refusing a document very important to the whole of Europe without understanding it just to tell "the direct leaders of a country to get their act together" IS a cheap stunt. I think the opposition parties in the relevant countries fooled the people, and tricked them into a stupid temper tantrum of whatever-you-say-I-say-no kneejerk. D

    • Re:It will not pass. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Welcome to democracy folks. This is just an advertizing "coup" from the opposition party. In the end, we'll get DMCA too (possibly a worse version of it)

      The law in question is that DMCA equivalent. That's kind of the point - the deputies placed an amendment on the bill to completely change the spirit of it, as a protest against its restrictions.

  • Merde!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by malia8888 ( 646496 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:15AM (#14316998)
    The French Parliament voted last night to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet, setting up a conflict with both the French government and with media companies.

    I smell a really big merde storm brewing here!...:-P..

  • FYI (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:15AM (#14316999)
    This was made yesterday (21 Dec), during Chrismas holidays. As a consequence, only 58 deputies (out of 577) were present, 30 of them were for a 'global licence', 28 were against...

    I don't think it's really significative

  • What to call this law? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by corvenus ( 931206 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:16AM (#14317003)
    Will the Americans rename the French music piracy to "Freedom music piracy"? Ironically, in this instance the use of the word Freedom would actually make sense.

  • Heavyhanded lobbying (Score:5, Funny)

    by draxredd ( 661953 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:17AM (#14317010)
    Not to mention iTune and Virgin prepaid cards being distributed to the parliament members in the Hall of l'Assemblée Nationale. France is not yet accustomed to such blatant lobbying, prefering more hypocritical means of pressure.
    So far so good but the government is certainly going to pull a Cheney on this (as in "pulling cheney back to vote patrioct act prolongation).
    If the text is finalized, i guess french ISP will see a major surge in overseas subscriptions.

  • Not yet fully voted (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is only the half of the law being voted yesterday.

    The government is now trying today to reverse this vote, or at least to ask every internet user to pay a tax (to download freely, but not to upload). If this seems familiar to the cd/dvd tax, you are not too far...

    Let's not make any conclusion and wait till tomorrow to know the real decision (Probably not as catchy as this news' title)

  • Could've been said better? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@nOspAm.wylfing.net> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:19AM (#14317028) Homepage Journal
    the French Parliament voted yesterday into law...This decision goes against the French government

    Eh, isn't Parliament part of government? Anyway, it's the National Assembly we're talking about here. And it wasn't "voted into law," it was simply passed by the Assembly. The chance of this becoming a real law is zero, this is just political gaming in French government.

    • Re:Could've been said better? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:24AM (#14317063) Homepage
      No Government refers to the Executive branch, parliament is the legislature. The givernment may be formed by members of the parliament, but that doesn't make the parliament the government - as an opposition members in the parliament would tell you!
    • this is just political gaming in French government.

      Maybe, but generaly speaking 'political gaming' doesn't take place in public at the parliament, more in the corridors and far away from cameras. This is a 1st in the french political life, and it shows a really deep division inside the current majority. Followups will be very interesting. For instance, a MP of the majority declared he was voting against the government because, being the father of teens, he didn't wanted to face prosecutions along with 8 m

    • Not sure about the exact arrangements in every country but most, holland, england, america and france got 2 houses or whatever the local version. One is the 'goverment' It is the one that gets the biggest headlines and from here the ministers are chosen. In america and holland the elections are also staggered. So you have elections every 2 years rotating. One for the president and his ministers. One for a second group who do not directly control goverment.

      They are however the final step for any law that ha

    • Eh, isn't Parliament part of government?

      I don't know about France, but in many other countries, including the UK, the answer is a definite NO (in the general case).

      Pardon me for presuming, but, well, it probably wouldnt hurt you to go read about some governmental systems outside of the USA. There's a lot of good I think from studying the UK system in particular, since (while it certainly has its downsides), presents some interesting contrasts with the USA with regards to devolved and decentralized powe

  • Contradicting News... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stupid_is ( 716292 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:24AM (#14317064) Homepage
    The Register [theregister.co.uk] is running a different story:

    Individuals in France who ignore copyright by downloading illegal music files will also be subject to a harsher "graduated" enforcement procedure, according to Agence France Presse.

    If uploaders keep ignoring warnings, they can be put on trial. A new anti piracy bill that is being examined by French MPs would also allow record companies to include technical measures to stop users from directly making copies.

  • Finally a copyright law I like (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yartrebo ( 690383 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:24AM (#14317065)
    I must say that this law actually looks good in all ways. If implemented, it will do everything from encouraging the spread of technology, increasing standards of living, saving natural and human resources, and even closing the trade deficit in France. Too bad I'm too cynical to actually think it'll stick.

  • Political situation in France (Score:5, Informative)

    by palad1 ( 571416 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:30AM (#14317108)
    The current french government is not really popular, not popular at all even.

    The weird thing is that there is no traditional opposition to this government. The left wing is not in good shape at all (since the 2005 elections where Jospin lost to Le Pen (our very own racist nutjob)). Which leads me to my point, these amendments were voted not because they are a Good Thing (tm) (which they are!), but because the UDF (center-right) saw this as a way to strenghten its role as the 'Real Opposition' and gain voters in the 'internet generation' demographics, which is not favorably biased towards them.

    But rest assured the current government is backed by very powerful industrials who cherish their fscking IP rights, so these amendments will be vetoed to death, or stealthly removed during the holidays season, just like previous bills have been passed last summer.

    I'd like to give my props to the eucd.info/ [slashdot.org] guys for their actions though, but don't fool yourselves, even the 'good guys' that voted these bills are using us, voters for their very own agenda.

    That's the sad truth... or maybe I should stop reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture [wikipedia.org] :)
  • "...who argue the deputies only wanted to show their independence from the government..."


    Or possibly this is an attack on the U.S. economy. If they made it legal to freely distribute intellectual property online then either the U.S. media companies would need to pull out of the french market altogether or take the hit in sales due to widespread distribution without compensation.

  • At last! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:36AM (#14317150) Journal

    A country where I will be free to share my William Shatner and David Hasselhoff MP3s with others!

  • The domain name http://lepiratebay.fr/ [lepiratebay.fr] was just registered.
  • to go with that download?

  • This just in... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tomcres ( 925786 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:52AM (#14317273)
    Metallica boycotts France.

    Nobody cares.

  • Ce n'est pas une légalisation du P2P (Score:5, Informative)

    by aaribaud ( 585182 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:54AM (#14317290)
    I've read the amendments and the law, and the minutes of the debates, and I'm even listening to the current debates right now (and yes, I'm French) and I am not sure at all that this legalizes file sharing. It might possibly make downloading licit, without doubt subject to the payment of a personal copy tax. However it does not legalize uploading at all.

  • Not everyone (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alarash ( 746254 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:09AM (#14317461)
    It's not "everyone" that would have to pay to their ISP. That would be optional. Here's an interview [lemonde.fr] (english translation [google.com]) of the deputy, Alain Suguenot, that proposed the amendment. The ISP would then transfert the money their receive from their customers to the SACEM [wikipedia.org] (sorry, no page in english on Wikipedia), the French RIAA, like it's already done for television broadcasts.

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:09AM (#14317467)
    France legalizing file sharing and Canada legalizing group sex:
    http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news _home&articleID=2125712 [mytelus.com]

    It sure is dull to be an American
  • According to the *translated article: "authors cannot forbid the reproduction of works that are made on any format from an online communications service when they are intended to be used privately." Sharing a movie on a public torrent would still be illegal. However, a nice side effect of this amendment would be the use of emulated games, provided you have coppied the ROM off of a cartridge or disk you own. This amendment still does not address my qualm with the legalities of file sharing; that is, illega

  • Ah, the further Socialization of entertainment. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:12AM (#14317500)
    So, they propose collecting a tax from French citizens to offset the income that musicians and their businesses will lose once there's no limit on freely distributing those musicians' works. So, where do you supposed the French government will send the checks to British, or American, or Italian musicians? Will the National Symphony Orchestra in DC be getting some of their income, now, from French taxpayers who only like listening to Eurotrash Disco Remixes? Will urban Parisians have to subisdize the production of Morroccan ex-patriate class-warfare Islamo-rap?

  • Media should be free (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gamer4Life ( 803857 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:14AM (#14317522)
    This would save so much money paid to lawyers. The media industry was created through the advancement of technology (reproduceable media), and now that technoogy has advanced further, they are trying to stop the natural progression.

    Artists can still make alot of money by performing in concerts, where people will still pay alot more to see them perform live. Movies can still play in theatres where people will want to see the big screen and hear the big sound. The only areas where they will suffer are in the CDs and DVD market.

    Sure there will be some pain (to the RIAA and MPAA), but the economy will adjust, and a new business model will arise.

  • Taxed Instead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jtwJGuevara ( 749094 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @11:12AM (#14318150)
    . The initial bill's detractors who pushed for this amendment want a tax for author rights to be paid by everyone on the ISP fees.

    If this happened in America I would have a shitfit. As someone who is online frequently but does not trade music or swap files online, I couldn't fathom the government taxing me through the service I use on the pretense that I might optionally do something the service allows, in this case sharing files that are copyrighted by others.

    Then again, I'm willing to wager the American government is already doing something similar to me through another commercial service that I'm not aware of at the moment.

  • Is P2P private? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by trollable ( 928694 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @11:30AM (#14318347) Homepage
    Every one is focusing on the tax, payment and copying. But there is nothing new there. Tax is already collected for CD and tapes, rights are already payed by radios, ... and you have the right for private copies. Nothing new here, every thing is already working. The real question is: Is P2P a private copy? If yes (as stated by the vote), then there is no more restriction to share (privately and so non-commercialy) but a tax is collected. Side note: the fact there is a tax is mainly because of the inability to trade rights at the individual level. An "ideal" system would be to pay each time you listen a song, for example $0.01. That would lower the entry price a lot. Additionaly, every thing should be promoted to the public domain in a reasonnable time frame.
  • Parliament voted this into law, but the Senate could overturn it, then the Upper House can do something else...
    and I thought U.S. government was confusing.

  • thanks (Score:3, Informative)

    by BokLM ( 550487 ) * <boklm@mars-attacks.org> on Friday December 23, 2005 @08:31AM (#14325988) Homepage Journal
    Many thanks to eucd.info [eucd.info] and all the people who helped this. Without them, we would have DRM everywhere, p2p illegal (even for sharing free software or other free content), and free software would be illegal as well (as any software which does not respect DRM). Ok, maybe this is what will happen finally (that would be sad), but there is still hope ... Thoses people wanted a law that make DRM mandatory, hopefully we'll get a law that allow us to share music legally.

    We'll see in January what happens ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close