EU Strikes Down French "3 Strikes" Copyright Infringement Law 271
Erris writes "Opendotdotdot has good news about laws in the EU: 'EU culture ministers yesterday (20 November) rejected French proposals to curb online piracy through compulsory measures against free downloading ... [and instead pushed] for "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" while fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property." [This] indicates that the culture ministers and their advisers are beginning to understand the dynamics of the Net, that throttling its use through crude instruments like the "three strikes and you're out" is exactly the wrong thing to do.'"
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the weight of "evidence" required is normally zero.
*drafts 3 fake copyright complaints to stonecyphers ISP*
Go back a decade or 2 and a crafted packet "ping of death" could knock someone using windows 95 off the net for a few minutes, now 3 specially crafted packets encapsulated inside envelopes can knock someone off the net for weeks or months no matter their ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
*OS not ISP
Re: (Score:2)
We should work to close this vulnerability asap, like we did with the "ping of death".
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The complete lack of due process probably had something to do with it.
Depending on how technically inclined they are, the realization that things would swiftly move to encryption only (if only because nobody not using encryption would be left online), and that even with due process the courts would be relying on the assumption that all P2P is piracy may have played a part as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because internet became a necessity for functioning in society.
The 'three-times-you're-out' rule would be the same as to prohibit rehabilitated thieves of making use of the road.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's worse than that, most information these days is transferred over the internet.
It would be the same as prohibiting someone who made a bomb threat from ever possessing a phone or a pen again. Freedom of expression is not something that should be so trivially and easily revoked.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Above all are the human rights, the right of information (communication) is way on top, a basic human right.
You could probably find offences that if repeated sufficiently often could warrant a reduction of this right, sharing IP as we know it is not going to be one of them.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect the ACTA process to include the 3-strikes again, both for the US and the EU. Trade policy is completely different and shielded against democratic influence.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Effective" does not mean that it's not crude. Thanks in part to the "3-strikes-you're-out" rule, The US has the highest prison population (in percentage) among developed countries [wikipedia.org]. The latest figures indicate that more than 1 in 100 American men or women are in jail [pewcenteronthestates.org].
That's 10 times more people in jail than Germany, for instance. Hell, it even leads Russia on that turf. So much for the "land of the free"...
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Informative)
I read the blog post and I find the title a litle inaccurate: the EU level clearly rejected the three strike principle to be extended as a EU directive but it is unclear if the decision will force France to back down on its national law.
It may need a directive to specify that this kind of approach is forbidden. Then, it may need a formal complain from the EU commission or a French citizen size the European Court of Justice to have the law revoked or modified.
The parent post also mentionned prison here. But the law was specifically designed to avoid sending people to prison for what is a minor offence.
Personnaly, I don't find the principle of three strikes and you are disconnected so problematic as it looks like road regulationsBUT there are some serious issues with the current implementations:
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
What are your proposal slashcrowd?
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Interesting)
At the moment there is a EU directive in place that is contrary to the French proposal. This is not stopping the French government from going ahead with their proposal though. It can still become French law within a few short months.
Eventually it will be struck down through citizen's actions (suit to the European Court resulting in fines) or through a change of government. Governments can be very very stubborn.
The only hope in France is to convince a majority of French representatives that this is a bad proposal before it is voted in.
Re: (Score:2)
As I wrote above watch the ACTA process where it is going to slip in again. An international trade treaty with the US.
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough ... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them. Many politicians still see copyright as property and therefore infringement as theft. Copyright as a government granted monopoly to create scarcity is far too complex for them. They see redressing copyright in favour of fair use as being government intervention in a free market of creativity rather than appropriate regulation of a resource to encourage economy and free speech. They still see it as balancing the majority rule with minority rights, and that copyright infringement is minority rights infringement as the mob seek to steal and in response civil rights must be suspended.
Instead it's much better to talk about fairness and the right to trial, and due process being removed by 3 strikes than anything you're talking about. Your ideas are too extreme and are not persuasive right now.
The best communication builds upon existing ideas and directs them in compelling ways. Communication is about having a sensitivity for your audience and where they're coming from. Understanding the law makers and the public is the difficult part and going too far at once will scare them off.
Be smarter.
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between this and road regulations, is that breaking the road rules can result in people being killed or seriously injured, as well as significant costs to individuals.
Copyright infringement on the other hand, typically only harms large corporations, and the actual level of harm it does is often massively overstated (most people would never have bought all the media they copied, simply due to cost if nothing else).
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1629259 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246 [slashdot.org]
It would appear not everyone agrees about the 'software is neutral' thing.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say we have a vastly more effective police force: That could account for it.
Say we have stricter (draconian?) drug laws: That could account for it.
Say we have slower due-process and the majority are merely pass-throughs: That could account for it.
I could name any one of hundreds of reasons why the U.S. prison population is so high. Yet, without demonstrating the % of those attributed to any one factor, I'm not going to jump around calling 3-strikes laws crude on the basis of that.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, you just have more crime due to vast inequality caused by unfettered capitalism. But don't suggest that to Republican voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Actually, they're not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
What makes it different? The court. The independent court that has to prove that you've committed the crime. The proposed French law would be about possibility to punish anyone without any court involved, without any proof.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Repeat offenders are usually tried and convicted. Not just pointed out in the street and incarcerated. Three strikes in this case means three accusations and no more internet. Not three convictions.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the outrage from arrogant media producers who feel they deserve to continue raking in obscene profits for work they did many years ago?
It cuts both ways you know, if media producers weren't so hostile towards the consumer (long copyright terms, draconian drm, etc etc) then only a small hard core of people would make their own copies....
But it's clearly more profitable to wring massive profits from the poor suckers who will buy, than to lower prices and loosen restrictions but sell more units.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Just look at how Meatloaf had to sue for nearly 20 years because the record company said "Bat out of Hell I", which to this day is still on the top 200 chart, hadn't actually generated a profit! I shit you not!*
Meat Loaf sued songwriter/producer Jim Steinman over the right to use the trademark "Bat out of hell" in conjunction musical performances and recordings. They settled out of court. I am not aware of any legal action resulting from the record company's failure to pay Mr. Loaf for the 45+ million co
Better to be accurate than alarmist (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of half-truths here...
"Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?"
I'll take that action. Here in Canada it's life plus 50 years - that's long enough for the children and grandchildren - in short, the family members who knew the creator in life - to enjoy the legacy. Then it is turned over to the public domain. And it is fair for your children and grandchildren to enjoy the fruits of your labour.
In the United States, it's life plus 70 years, if I remember correctly (it could be life plus 75). That was put into place to account for the increased lifespan...well, not quite true. It was put in place in Europe to account for the increased lifespan. It was put in place in the United States because European legislation stated that length of copyright would be determined by country of origin, and that meant that any American intellectual property would go out of copyright sooner, and make it harder for Europeans to invest into American IP (such as a movie, etc.).
"But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity."
You've fallen into a common trap here - you're mistaking abuse of a law for the law itself. They are not the same thing. You're also misunderstanding the importance of copyright. So, I'll explain it here.
Copyright is a set of laws that provide a legal framework that allow creative artists to negotiate with those who would distribute their work, providing protection to both sides to prevent one from screwing over the other before a contract is signed. However, if a creative artist signs all of their rights away, they lose that protection. Hence the ability for abuse by the RIAA, etc. It's a horrifying situation, I agree, but it is not endemic to copyright. It is far more endemic to sociopathic corporations, and copyright is only one of many laws that get abused.
"When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture."
Very wrong, particularly when looking at the Internet, of all places. We are drowning in content. And once something is under copyright, such as a book, or play, painting, song, etc., it is always in the best interests of the copyright holder to keep that work available as long as possible. A book that is out of print cannot generate any revenue.
What determines the availability of a book, song, film, etc., is nothing more than simple economics. It costs money to produce and publish a book (I know - I own a small publishing company). So long as the sales of the book will make money, the book will stay in print. Once the book stops making money, it comes out of print. In fact, if you go to your local bookstore and look at all of those new books, most of them will have an in-print lifespan of less than ten years.
In fact, the technology that has done more than anything else to maintain culture in the literary world and keep books available is print-on-demand technology, which means that a book can be kept available for sale without requiring warehouse space. That revolutionized the book industry. And it had very little to do with either copyright or the Internet.
To misquote Serenity, when it comes to the alarmist views of the copyright debate, nothing is as it seems. Copyright is not the grand arena, the pirates are not scrappy heroes against terrible odds, and our culture, far from being under a stranglehold, is bursting at the seams. We are drowning in content, and never has it been so easy to create. The copyright abolitionists and reformers keep referring to some mythical golden
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The true irony is that Steamboat Willie was a parody of Steamboat Bill Jr., which was released a few months earlier. In fact most Disney films are based on copying existing stories, f
How do you get membership? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish Australia was part of the EU. Perhaps this firewall business would disappear.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Funny)
We can get Iceland for free as an EU member state now ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
If we were part of the EU, what makes you think we wouldn't get the worst of both worlds?
An Aussie was arrested and jailed in London recently on a German warrant for denying the holocaust. I'm not too comfortable exposing ourselves to those laws whilst having a secretive internet blacklist.
Re: (Score:2)
Merge w/chinese wall? (Score:4, Interesting)
If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that New Caledonia [wikipedia.org] is much closer, about 750 miles away from Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another requirement of *E*U membership might be some continental proximity to Europe...
Time to break out the plastic paddles then...
Re: (Score:2)
Another requirement of *E*U membership might be some continental proximity to Europe...
Time to break out the plastic paddles then...
You mean a bit like this ...
http://stuffucanuse.com/aussie_windows/am.htm [stuffucanuse.com]
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like all civilised countries, Australia does not have the death penalty.
To me it is the touchstone of civilization that the state does not kill its citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow... just... WOW.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prison is a pretty poor punishment, for the reason you pointed out...
When you leave prison, depending how long you've been there you may have completely lost touch with the world and suffer the stigma of being an ex-con which will severely hamper any hopes of moving on...
Instead, the only life you know and the only way to make enough money to live is crime...
You've spent the last X years in the company of criminals who could have taught you plenty of illegal things, and you're likely to have many new crimin
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the facts are that the death penalty does not work as a a deterrant as you claim.
Take for example terrorists, they would rather die and go to heaven than live in a jail.
I cant be bothered looking up the figures, but there have been many cases where DNA has taken someone out of death row. How many innocent people should be allowed to die so you can feel good about the death penalty being applied?
Executing even ONE innocent is intolerable.
In a deeply flawed justice system it is unfogiveable.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basicly you have no clue how death penalty works out in reality.
The Soviet Union in the late '70ies introduced the death penalty for rape. What was the result? The number of rapes did not go down. But the number of rapes where the victim got murdered afterwards shot up.
People defending the death penalty often seem to be under the impression that crime in the most cases is carried out because of lenghty thoughts and careful weighing of the pros and cons. It is not. And that makes the whole "deterrence" idea void.
The death penalty does not deterr crime. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People defending the death penalty often seem to be under the impression that crime in the most cases is carried out because of lenghty thoughts and careful weighing of the pros and cons. It is not. And that makes the whole "deterrence" idea void.
You are jumping to conclusions, the magic words here are "no worse than". By applying the death penalty to rape, they made rape/murder no worse than rape. It's always a problem for the legal system to run out of options - even without the death penalty someone that's heading for life without parole (as in really life, unlike in Europe) already has no legal incentive. The only thing they can control is the probability of getting caught, not the outcome and so killing witnesses, destroying evidence, wild geta
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem lies somewhat deeper.
For a deterrence to work, you have to be able to imagine the penalty to you. It's no problem to imagine paying a penalty of $1000 (and also to imagine the stuff you can't buy instead). It's also no problem to imagine being locked in a prison for a certain amount of time and not being able to walk where you want or get up when you want and choose the clothing you want etc.pp.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore. So the death penalty is just a big abstractum to you. It has no touchable meaning for you. As long as you can remember, you were always there, and as long as you will be able to remember, you will be there. From your experience, you seem to have eternal life.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence. But that requires you to be deeply religious and devout. And then it can work also in reverse: You just have to imagine that your planned deed is somehow holy and just. And then instead of a deterrence, sure death might even look positive.
That's for instance why the Taliban can muster so many suicide bombers. Probably not many of them are ready to go to prison for life. But confronting them with the big abstractum works, because you can fill the nothingness that is death with anything you want, also with 72 virgins. Instead of a deterrence the death is actually attractive to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore.
This is nonsense. If people didn't fear death they'd be dying all the time. If breaking the speed limit was punishable by death, there would be a lot less speeders on the road.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence.
The primary role religion plays for most people is to get over the fear of death by promising an afterlife.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Informative)
"Why should society pay to place a criminal in perpetual (until death) incarceration'
As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.
A quick Google will show how bad the problem is.
The ACLU also wrote:
A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. ""An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,"" he said in his conclusion. ""One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.""
Enough reasons for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is afraid of dying tho...
Consider suicide bombers, who are planning to die... If somehow their plan fails, but they are still convicted of attempting a terrorist bombing, killing them is in effect finishing their job. Keeping them alive would be worse punishment, since they believe that death would make them a martyr.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:4, Informative)
No state should ever kill anyone.
The single most stupid damging human afflication is
beyond doubt 'patriotism" I have never been able to work out any useful function of patriotism.
Its just a mechanism of propaganda that allows govts to start wars.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never been able to work out any useful function of patriotism.
It allows the army to recruit more easily.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a government that protects the right of it people. Australia needs liberating.
The Free Culture Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
* Seek culture, but not at the expense of liberty
* Seek liberty, but not at the expense of truth
* Seek truth, but not at the expense of privacy
* Seek privacy, but not at the expense of life
* Seek life, and enjoy free culture.
Re:The Free Culture Principle (Score:5, Funny)
Yes I think I understand how this works
* Seek rock, but not at the expense of scissors
* Seek scissors, but not at the expense of paper
* Seek paper, but not at the expense of rock
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
* Seek rock, but not at the expense of scissors * Seek scissors, but not at the expense of paper * Seek paper, but not at the expense of rock
* Seek lizard, but not at the expense of spock
* Seek spock, but not at the expense of rock
Re: (Score:2)
Lisa: Look, there's only one way to settle this: Rock-paper-scissors.
Lisa (thinking): Poor predictable Bart. Always picks rock.
Bart (thinking): Good ol' rock. Nothing beats that!
Danger to freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Any business model that depends on preventing what people can do easily in the privacy of their own home is (1) impossible to maintain and (2) detrimental to freedom as it requires an oppressive legal infrastructure and a brutal enforcement mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess we should just legalise printing counterfeit money, then?
That's the funny thing about these simplistic arguments about enforcement: when you start to consider things like ethics and consequences, most people will act responsibly voluntarily, and you can concentrate any enforcement efforts on those who act selfishly at the expense of others. So it goes with any law, and this area is no different.
The problem with copyright is that right now, because effective action hasn't been taken against abusiv
Re: (Score:2)
Neither copying an LP nor printing a dollar bill causes any harm. However, presenting either as genuine (if it is not) is liable to, as it may impair the truth (the public's apprehension thereof).
We need to take care in distinguishing unnatural monopolies such as copyright from falsehoods such as public acts of plagiarism or passing of forgeries.
We should also recognise that falsehoods committed in the privacy of one's home cannot cause harm whilst they remain private.
So, counterfeiting was not such a good
Re: (Score:2)
You seem awfully sure of which rights are important, which aren't, and what order everything goes in. That's remarkable, considering that lawyers and philosophers have spent centuries debating such points, and to this day there are fundamentally opposed points of view with widespread support.
As for the state granting artificial monopolies: that is the entire point of copyright. It's very easy to condemn that, but such evidence as we have suggests that without that incentive, a lot of that "culture" wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess we should just legalise printing counterfeit money, then?
The difference is that the product you create is basically just a picture. You can't use it outside the privacy of your own home, to use it, you have to go in public and defraud someone into accepting it as real cash.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but if you're going to play that card, you have to accept that to have a work to copy that way in the first place, it has to have got into someone's home. If they bought a legitimate copy, then personally I think however they use it themselves and privately should constitute fair use (and, to varying degrees in different jurisdictions, the law often works this way already). However, what we're talking about here is making illegal copies over the Internet. That's hardly private, particularly on the part
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing apples and oranges. "Money" is not a copy of a song. Money, in and of itself, represents a value external to the physical bill you hold in your hand.
When one attempts to pass copied currency it is fraud because you are asserting it represents a value above and beyond the mere image you are passing. Further more, you are using the fraudulently projected value of the fake currency to convert value.
When people share copied music, there is no implied value. It doesn't require any deception. Ther
i'm going to get modded flamebait for this, but (Score:2, Funny)
does this mean that fair and balanced is good now?
Oh "good news" (Score:2, Insightful)
Now we can throw them in prison instead of just cutting off their Internet. I don't get it; how is forcing stronger measures good news?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because due process is warranted. Previously only the faintest of indication of evidence was enough to get one's internet access cut off. Now content providers will have to show actual evidence of piracy and financial harm. This is much harder.
So far, when taken to court, in the US, no content provider have been able to convict anybody after appeal.
But you are right, people are interpreting this as a license to pirate, this is the opposite.
Can we get some of that in New Zealand? (Score:4, Informative)
Can we get some of this "common-sense" in New Zealand please?
"Anti-piracy" 3-strikes was railroaded into our copyright law (section s92a) after select committee hearings and due process. Then the Minister had the gall to complain that all the moaners should have got involved in the process.
Re:Can we get some of that in New Zealand? (Score:5, Informative)
In New Zealand the minister responsible for this, Judth Tizard, was kicked out the parliament after losing in the recent NZ election. Many people in the IT community worked against her.
Getting kicked out didn't stop her from going on a radio tirade about how it was necessary to remove due process and oversight by cutting off people who *might* be infringing [theyworkforyou.co.nz]. Yes, she even says "might". She actually believes she's doing this for the good of New Zealand and many other people in power do too.
The law will come into effect in February 2009 after a parliamentary vote so we've got until then to change minds. People against these parts of the law should join the groups working against this such as Internet NZ [internetnz.net.nz] and the NZOSS [nzoss.org.nz].
The Labour party (which she was part of) lost the last election and now the National party are in power. It remains to be seen whether they're going to do better but we can only try.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the average person supposed to know what laws exist until they are prosecuted by them?
It's not like politicians tell the voter what they are doing or plan to do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Get the minister's son/daughter indicted, convicted and sentenced to 60 days in a state jail.
Nothing repeals a law faster than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greens are the most liberal party in NZ in many respects, but no party's nose is clean. Remember the Greens were part of the coalition that took away freedom of speech about advocating political parties. Independently of that, they also want to start adding legal controls over what kind of entertainment can enter people's homes.
On the other wing, I was at a pre-election town hall meeting where the ACT candidate told the voters to their faces -- explicitly and openly -- that ACT wants to do away with the
France and Baseball (Score:5, Funny)
I mean come on, it should be struck down on the basis that France doesn't even play Baseball so a "3 strikes" rule is just the American Imperialism that they are always railing against.
Now a "7 Course Meal and you are out" sounds a much more French rule to have.
On the copyright side of course its quite odd that France, which has a set of music that only the French want to listen to (Manau [amazon.com] excepted) is worried about piracy, hell if more people listen to some of their artists they should be glad.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of taste. Not only do I prefer (by far) Denez Prigent [amazon.com]'s music when it comes to french-made electronic celtic music, but it also seems that Manau ran into trouble with Alan Stivell [wikipedia.org], who sued them for plagiarism. Talk about copyrights...
With that being said, though being a French guy myself, I don't care very much for the current generation of French artists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to say this, but the French have excellent:
- Chansons: Edith Piaf, Serge Gainsbourg
- Hip-Hop: FFF
- Techno: Air
- Lounge: St Germain (the artist, not the compilations
- Gypsy Jazz: Paris Combo
- Pop: Nouvelle Vague
And this is just my extraordinarily limited knowledge of French music. Granted, the pickings are slimmer than in the Music Export Top 3, the US, the UK and Sweden, but still there's a lot of interesting things going on there.
Same thing in Germany with people like Luna, the Notwist, Die Fantasti
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I lived in the country for 2 years working in a multi-national organisation, and have a reasonable French music collection. One day we had a competition of "who is the worst at" and for the music category it came down to France v Germany in the final.
The french contender put forwards the amount of average 50 year old crooners and Johnny Halliday who all have their crowds of 17-20 year old models in the background all the time.
The german contender pulled out the winning plug however by pointing out that not
3 Strikes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Woooosh!
"3 Strikes" Law - revised (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit in anyone else's computers thrice shall be kicked out of business"
In that case, it should be "Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit on anyone else's computer should be locked up." Yeah, Sony, I'm talking about you.
European Parliament elections (Score:5, Informative)
European Parliament elections are coming up soon, have yet to find a resource to help pick decent candidates to elect, reward these kinds of decisions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009 [wikipedia.org]
actually (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean organizations like ... USA ?
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? In this case, at least, the EU has shown its worth. I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords. It may introduce bureaucracy, but I will take that for protection of my human rights, privacy and a more open Europe.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords.
ah hahahahahaha
*wipes tears*
heh..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, there is no need to be a member of the EU. That's what was democratically decided in those countries.
This is also the reason why Switzerland isn't a member of the EU - it was declined in votes (by the people). One of the big advantages of the half-direct democracy we have here.
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Informative)
The member states signed treaties that they will have to obey certain restrictions imposed upon them by the EU. If they didn't want that they shouldn't have joined the EU. They wanted the benefits, they gotta live with the downsides too. France isn't a small country and could certainly have stayed out of the EU without being bullied into joining.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be so sure. France relies so heavily on farming subsidies from the EU they'd be a far weaker nation than they are now otherwise.
France is in a situation like Britain was in the 70s and 80s, back then Britain had a massive mining industry but it simply wasn't profitable, it was held up by subsidies and it was holding the country back. Thatcher realised this and whilst it was immensly unpopular, she let the mines close. It resulted in large amounts of job losses but the country was better for it. France
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is roughly the size of the USA in population and area.
Perhaps it is not so different to think of the EU as a large country with a number of member states?
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over every elements of members' law, but safekeeping democracy and liberties in all of its member states is part of its charter.
This is good, no? Recently, even in highly technical areas like patents and telecommunications, European representatives have erred on the side of preserving liberties. This is amazing, not?
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Bush:
The trouble with the Americans is that they have no word for renaissance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over every elements of members' law, but safekeeping democracy and liberties in all of its member states is part of its charter.
Which is ironic, given that the big decisions made at EU level are made by politicians who are not directly elected to those posts (and not infrequently, they are those who could not credibly remain in government in their own countries after the mess they made of things back home). Because of this, the EU is often used by national governments who want to push an unpopular agenda that they can't credibly do locally, by driving it through in Europe where there is no popular vote, and then claiming back home t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually most of the European directives go in the direction of ensuring free trade, freedom and democracy. Just look at them. All these directives need to go before the European parliament which is democratically elected. The European council is indeed made of national ministers which are not necessarily elected, however they represent the majority in their country of origin.
The proposed constitution would have given more weight to the parliament and less to the council, which is probably good. This is not
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So the wrong side won the US civil war? Just checking. You're allowed to say 'yes,' I know it wasn't really about slavery (though you have to ask yourself whether the revolution wasn't, given the timing).
(PS: Flamebait or not? It's an interesting and slightly worrisome fact that when I say something cynical about America I have no way to predict whether I'll be modded "flamebait" or "insightful." I swear, I can use the exact same words on two different days and get opposite moderation. Maybe it depends on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Countries can't make laws contradicting treaties they've signed up to, or laws they've helped bring into being across the whole EU.
What exactly is the problem with this? It's the EU doing what it was supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I second this.
Oh, and would you mind creating an account and logging in ? I'm tired of Slashdotters portraying French people as cowards, anonymous or not.