NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7706014.stm

French pirates face net cut-off

French plans to throw persistent pirates off the net have got closer to becoming law.

The French Senate voted overwhelmingly in favour of the law, which aims to tackle ongoing piracy of music, movies, and games online.

Those caught illegally sharing digital media will get warnings e-mailed and posted to them before having their net connection terminated.

The proposed law now goes to the French National Assembly for final approval.

The idea to tackle piracy with such a three strikes law was first floated in November 2007, when French President Nicolas Sarkozy called it: "a decisive moment for the future of a civilised internet".

Under the plan, net firms will be enrolled as watchdogs that will keep an eye on consumers indulging in casual piracy.

Those spotted illegally sharing copyrighted works, such as music tracks or movies, will get two warnings, but if they do not heed these then their net connection with be terminated.

The French Senate voted 297 to 15 to back the law, which will also create a new governmental body that will oversee the anti-piracy work. Companies will be encouraged to install firewalls blocking content sharing by employees.

Prior to the Senate vote, French politicians rejected an amendment, by Bruno Retailleau of the right-wing MPF party, which suggested using fines instead of cutting people off.

Mr Retailleau said the net had become an "essential commodity" and cutting people off went too far.

If enacted, the law will put France on a collision course with Brussels, which rejected a call to impose such "three strikes" laws across Europe in April 2008.

Throwing people offline, it said, conflicted with "civil liberties and human rights".

At the same time Sweden is reportedly drawing up laws that will make it easier to track down and prosecute persistent pirates. The law might be enacted in early 2009.

Oh, wow, there's a great idea France. Let's deprive people of their civil rights access to information and so on because of piracy. Yeah, that's not going to get abused. :rolleyes:

You can't handle piracy this way, people. You try to handle piracy this way and all you'll do is encourage piracy all the more. Attack the reasons for the piracy, not the piracy itself. Eventually there WILL be illegitimate ISPs set up. All you do is push that moment along faster.

Putain...

Le ownt :D

Oh, wow, there's a great idea France. Let's deprive people of their civil rights

access to the internet is a civil right now? I don't see the problem with this. Drive badly enough and you lose your license to drive. Serve alcohol to minors and you lose your license to sell liquor. Fail health inspection and you lose your ability to serve food.

This is not a new or different concept.

access to the internet is a civil right now? I don't see the problem with this. Drive badly enough and you lose your license to drive. Serve alcohol to minors and you lose your license to sell liquor. Fail health inspection and you lose your ability to serve food.

This is not a new or different concept.

Neo, there are quite a few people who believe that if they have the ability to fog a mirror with their own breath, they are entitled as a civil right to anything their little heart desires.

That is not a new or different concept. You know, not only the right to eat at a lunch counter, but to force everyone else to pay for it as well.

access to the internet is a civil right now? I don't see the problem with this. Drive badly enough and you lose your license to drive. Serve alcohol to minors and you lose your license to sell liquor. Fail health inspection and you lose your ability to serve food.

This is not a new or different concept.

I argue that free access to information is a civil right. Denying people's access to the internet through a three strikes law violates one's ability to freely access information, and therefore violates civil liberties.

Or at least it does in the EU anyway, according to the article. I know that, for instance, here in the U.S. it's not a legal right, but there are a lot of things that should be legal rights that aren't.

Neo, there are quite a few people who believe that if they have the ability to fog a mirror with their own breath, they are entitled as a civil right to anything their little heart desires.

That is not a new or different concept. You know, not only the right to eat at a lunch counter, but to force everyone else to pay for it as well.

Because, you know, that's totally what I said. I totally argued that piracy is a legitimate activity and we shouldn't do anything to counter it. I totally argued that everyone should pay for little privileges.

back in the old days did they have three strikes on pirate ships? hell no, they got hung and left as a warning to other pirates

either that or employed for the service of HRH

Make them walk the plank. Yarr. Dead men solicit no spam.

access to the internet is a civil right now? I don't see the problem with this. Drive badly enough and you lose your license to drive. Serve alcohol to minors and you lose your license to sell liquor. Fail health inspection and you lose your ability to serve food.

This is not a new or different concept.

it is more and more becoming the only way to pay bills. Someone with out internet will be a significant disadvantage to someone who has internet.
So I could say it may be a civil right or it should become one.

I argue that free access to information is a civil right. Denying people's access to the internet through a three strikes law violates one's ability to freely access information, and therefore violates civil liberties.

Or at least it does in the EU anyway, according to the article. I know that, for instance, here in the U.S. it's not a legal right, but there are a lot of things that should be legal rights that aren't.

But don't you sort of give up your rights when you abuse them, say by pirating something. Just like how a murderer (or other offender) can get locked up even though that violates her liberties, since she broke the law.

it is more and more becoming the only way to pay bills. Someone with out internet will be a significant disadvantage to someone who has internet.
So I could say it may be a civil right or it should become one.

It's not a civil right, trust me. (or don't... haha... I wouldn't)


Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.

^sayz wiki

it is more and more becoming the only way to pay bills. Someone with out internet will be a significant disadvantage to someone who has internet.
So I could say it may be a civil right or it should become one.

Someone's whos been in Jail is at a disadvantage to someone who hasn't been in Jail.

what they don't tell you is how they will prevent Joe Pirate from going to another computer (say an Internet Cafe... if they have those in france) and logging on with another name?

is the Net blockage permament or temporary?

it is more and more becoming the only way to pay bills. Someone with out internet will be a significant disadvantage to someone who has internet.
So I could say it may be a civil right or it should become one.

Someone who is locked up in prison has a significant disadvantage over someone who is out on the street enjoying his freedom. In fact, the ability to walk free is the most fundamental civil right we have.

That doesn't mean the government violates people's civil rights when they arrest them for crimes. Pirating is illegal. And I'm sure people who lose internet because of it will suffer, that's kinda the point, that's why we punish people who commit crimes.

The fact that their punishment for illegal activities will disadvantage them doesn't really concern me.

Someone who is locked up in prison has a significant disadvantage over someone who is out on the street enjoying his freedom. In fact, the ability to walk free is the most fundamental civil right we have.

That doesn't mean the government violates people's civil rights when they arrest them for crimes. Pirating is illegal. And I'm sure people who lose internet because of it will suffer, that's kinda the point, that's why we punish people who commit crimes.

The fact that their punishment for illegal activities will disadvantage them doesn't really concern me.

neo, some people don't believe in the "punish" part after someone commits an illegal act. You may say, "that's kinda the point" but the people who believe otherwise will never get that point.

Neo Art is half correct. Yes, someone who drives dangerously should be deprived of their imagined "right" to drive a car -- but not to travel by other means. That is, it is not necessary to ban them from walking on the footpath or travelling in a taxi, only to ban the behaviour which endangers others, ie their driving.

To take that idea back to the French approach to piracy -- to ban copyright offenders from use of the internet at all is like imposing house arrest on someone for dangerous driving. It prevents the offender from accessing the news and opinions of their choice, it makes it more difficult and probably more expensive for them to do their banking and shopping, and it may impact on their employability. None of these are legitimate methods of punishment for what most people regard as a fairly minor crime.

Instead, the 'harmful' behaviour should be banned, with a block on the P2P protocol pirates generally use. If they respond by using an encrypted P2P service, then that's that. No proof, no crime.

My feeling is that internet surveillance is better reserved for prosecuting serious crime, like child molestation to produce pornography or conspiracy to kill people with bombs. The more encrypted traffic there is on the internet, the harder that is ... and P2P is a big proportion of internet traffic.

Neo Art is half correct. Yes, someone who drives dangerously should be deprived of their imagined "right" to drive a car -- but not to travel by other means. That is, it is not necessary to ban them from walking on the footpath or travelling in a taxi, only to ban the behaviour which endangers others, ie their driving.

To take that idea back to the French approach to piracy -- to ban copyright offenders from use of the internet at all is like imposing house arrest on someone for dangerous driving. It prevents the offender from accessing the news and opinions of their choice, it makes it more difficult and probably more expensive for them to do their banking and shopping, and it may impact on their employability. None of these are legitimate methods of punishment for what most people regard as a fairly minor crime.

Instead, the 'harmful' behaviour should be banned, with a block on the P2P protocol pirates generally use. If they respond by using an encrypted P2P service, then that's that. No proof, no crime.

My feeling is that internet surveillance is better reserved for prosecuting serious crime, like child molestation to produce pornography or conspiracy to kill people with bombs. The more encrypted traffic there is on the internet, the harder that is ... and P2P is a big proportion of internet traffic.
Thank you. That's more along the lines of what I really meant...I'd have said something to this effect, but I've been rather loopy today.

But don't you sort of give up your rights when you abuse them, say by pirating something. Just like how a murderer (or other offender) can get locked up even though that violates her liberties, since she broke the law.

That's fine and dandy those in Prison however have had a Trial. This is simply done with out a trial. Before I am punished and forced to live at a disadvantaged I should be convicted. And the none use of the internet should be the terms of a trial.

Someone who is locked up in prison has a significant disadvantage over someone who is out on the street enjoying his freedom. In fact, the ability to walk free is the most fundamental civil right we have.

That doesn't mean the government violates people's civil rights when they arrest them for crimes. Pirating is illegal. And I'm sure people who lose internet because of it will suffer, that's kinda the point, that's why we punish people who commit crimes.

The fact that their punishment for illegal activities will disadvantage them doesn't really concern me.

Except this is done with out a trial and does not have a set period of time. The french government here is sidestepping the right to a trail before punishment is decided. A man in prison is tried and convicted before being put at a disadvantage or having some of his rights denied. This is not the case here, a body in the government is simply decides to cut your traffic based off what it perceives as illegal copyright infringement

That's fine and dandy those in Prison however have had a Trial. This is simply done with out a trial. Before I am punished and forced to live at a disadvantaged I should be convicted. And the none use of the internet should be the terms of a trial.

I would agree with that, there ought to be a trial.

neo, some people don't believe in the "punish" part after someone commits an illegal act. You may say, "that's kinda the point" but the people who believe otherwise will never get that point.

Hey, all I did was set fire to a church full of War Orphans. And somehow I'M the one who needs to be punished. Besides, it was all in self defense.

I would agree with that, there ought to be a trial.

My knowledge of French law is limited, but in the US a judge can already rule a convicted person not have internet access, computer access, or even Touch tone Phone as a condition of Probation/Parole.
If if the same is true in France this law sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine whoever is in charge of the office doesn't like a political party. He could easily have the internet access cut to several major candidates putting that party at a disadvantage during election time.

Except this is done with out a trial and does not have a set period of time.

It does say those CAUGHT pirating. I assume that means with some sort of trial to prove their guilt. Now of course I would not advocate any punishment without verdict, but there's nothing wrong I see, conceptually, with this kind of punishment for illegal activity.

I thought it said "neck cut-off", and I thought, "Are we back in the sixteenth century or something?"

It does say those CAUGHT pirating. I assume that means with some sort of trial to prove their guilt. Now of course I would not advocate any punishment without verdict, but there's nothing wrong I see, conceptually, with this kind of punishment for illegal activity.

Nope no trial. You get a warning email then you have your internet access cut.
To my knowledge a judge can already cut internet access as part of probation or parole conditions So this law is not needed for those convicted. It only affects those the French government is too lazy to convict.

Now the fun part will be businesses and schools that use one broad band connection for multiple people. Imagine a business or school loses internet access because an employee was sharing files. there would be riots where I am at if my university lost internet access.

It does say those CAUGHT pirating. I assume that means with some sort of trial to prove their guilt. Now of course I would not advocate any punishment without verdict, but there's nothing wrong I see, conceptually, with this kind of punishment for illegal activity.

You're opposed to parking tickets, then? Or to use your other example from early in the thread, the empowerment of a health inspector to close a dirty eatery?

Both can be appealed to a court, but if they're not they are binding without a judge ruling.

My argument is that cutting off internet has too many other implications, besides stopping the piracy, to be applied like a parking fine or health notice.

I thought it said "neck cut-off", and I thought, "Are we back in the sixteenth century or something?"

Meh. The neck is just a bundle of tubes anyway.

You're opposed to parking tickets, then?
the person issues the ticket has the right to go to court to fight it. In fact paying the ticket is a guilty plea and most tickets are worded as such.


Or to use your other example from early in the thread, the empowerment of a health inspector to close a dirty eatery?
that's a license issue. the inspector pulls the license for failure to meet standards that he had to know to get the license to begin with.

Someone's whos been in Jail is at a disadvantage to someone who hasn't been in Jail.

what they don't tell you is how they will prevent Joe Pirate from going to another computer (say an Internet Cafe... if they have those in france) and logging on with another name?

is the Net blockage permament or temporary?

My guess would be that places such as internet cafes would be encourage or in the future even required to set up firewalls that prevent P2P programs if they don't already have such barriers in place. It probably is in their best interest to prevent such activities even now.

Does make me thankful that I live in Canada and currently file sharing copyrighted material is still a grey area... for now. Stolen music sounds better. ;)

You're opposed to parking tickets, then? Or to use your other example from early in the thread, the empowerment of a health inspector to close a dirty eatery?

Both can be appealed to a court, but if they're not they are binding without a judge ruling.

You said yourself, both can be appealed. If you chose not to...

the person issues the ticket has the right to go to court to fight it. In fact paying the ticket is a guilty plea and most tickets are worded as such.

And what's the comparable action to "paying the ticket" in this case?
The person is denied internet for allegedly breaking the law. They won't get it back until their appeal is successful.

They suffer material harm before the decision goes before a court.

that's a license issue. the inspector pulls the license for failure to meet standards that he had to know to get the license to begin with.

And is "use of the internet" similarly a licensed activity?

If a kitchen is dirty, the eatery has to be prevented from serving food to customers. That is the core of their business, they would only lose money if they stayed open and customers came and ate packed lunches there ... so closing the business is the correct way to make sure they aren't serving food.

Use of the internet is not so simple. The offender has used a P2P program, or a browser, or even email/messaging, to break a law. Depriving them of the internet deprives them of several services, at least one of which they may not have used to do anything illegal.

You said yourself, both can be appealed. If you chose not to...

But removal of internet is punishment before that appeal.

Putain...

J'suis d'accord!

That is a bit much to cut off the 'net to pirates and I doubt that it will help. Besides, there are people that deserve their net privileges provoked more than pirates.

To take that idea back to the French approach to piracy -- to ban copyright offenders from use of the internet at all is like imposing house arrest on someone for dangerous driving. It prevents the offender from accessing the news and opinions of their choice, it makes it more difficult and probably more expensive for them to do their banking and shopping, and it may impact on their employability. None of these are legitimate methods of punishment for what most people regard as a fairly minor crime. ??? what? no news access if internet connection is cut off? so the French have no Television or newspapers?

and god forbid that they can't do shopping. after all, Inmates in prision get to go to the mall every now and then.

and good heavens that inmates in jail are more employable than those that didn't go to jail.

no, someone breaks a law with their computer, they loose their access to use the computer. makes sense to me.

a drunk/junkie is sentenced to Alcohol/Substance abuse programs and he's basically deprived of his poison of choice. so the same thing applies here.

Instead, the 'harmful' behaviour should be banned, with a block on the P2P protocol pirates generally use. If they respond by using an encrypted P2P service, then that's that. No proof, no crime.
"sorry sir, even tho your home was burglerized, because there is no obviously clues, we can't find out who did it. case will be closed as unsolved. have a nice day." ;)


Nope no trial. You get a warning email then you have your internet access cut.
To my knowledge a judge can already cut internet access as part of probation or parole conditions So this law is not needed for those convicted. It only affects those the French government is too lazy to convict. do you have a link to the bill that says this?

My guess would be that places such as internet cafes would be encourage or in the future even required to set up firewalls that prevent P2P programs if they don't already have such barriers in place. It probably is in their best interest to prevent such activities even now. doubtful. there are ways around that.

Does make me thankful that I live in Canada and currently file sharing copyrighted material is still a grey area... for now. Stolen music sounds better. ;)
you can bet other countries will be watching France closely to study the effects and if any changes to the law be needed.

Its great listening to bands who encourage you to pirate their music.

Darkthrone, how I love thee.

This seems to be the way the world's going.

??? what? no news access if internet connection is cut off? so the French have no Television or newspapers?

I said "their choice of news and opinion" and that's just what I meant. Restricting their choice to television and newspapers is, from a free press perspective, like saying they can buy the Telegraph but not the Times.

and god forbid that they can't do shopping. after all, Inmates in prision get to go to the mall every now and then.

If you think jail is an appropriate punishment for consuming copyright material without paying for it, you should just say so.

I might even agree ... at least the punishment comes AFTER a proper trial.

and good heavens that inmates in jail are more employable than those that didn't go to jail.

Hmm, you tempt me. Perhaps a case could be made that a criminal record, by allowing the community to punish an ex-felon in addition to the punishment imposed by the law, is "cruel and unusual punishment."

But it would be a hijack. I think you're conflating my words with someone else's.

no, someone breaks a law with their computer, they loose their access to use the computer. makes sense to me.

Does it? Where is the clause that says that as well as cutting off the internet connection, French police will enter your house and remove the computer so you can't play games with it?

Or is that just how things would be in JuNii land ...

a drunk/junkie is sentenced to Alcohol/Substance abuse programs and he's basically deprived of his poison of choice. so the same thing applies here.

No, here you deprive a junky of alcohol, or an alcoholic of access to heroin.

I have repeatedly made the point that deprivation of internet goes beyond what is required to prevent repetition of the ALLEGED copyright violation.

But I've seen you in this mood before. Once you start railing against criminals you lose the ability to distinguish between a kid stealing lollies from a shop and a mass murderer. I'm not expecting much sense from you until you've had your nap.

"sorry sir, even tho your home was burglerized, because there is no obviously clues, we can't find out who did it. case will be closed as unsolved. have a nice day." ;)

You'd prefer that the cop lies to you?

Or perhaps you'd be happier if he just framed up some kid who he's sure, but can't prove in a court, committed some other burglary.

It's not such a wild tangent from the subject at all. If a family member who shares your internet connection got the warnings but kept leaching the pirate stuff ... you'd be cut off for something you didn't do.

But that won't worry you. Consorting with criminals makes you a criminal, right? Zero tolerance ...

I said "their choice of news and opinion" and that's just what I meant. Restricting their choice to television and newspapers is, from a free press perspective, like saying they can buy the Telegraph but not the Times. I can only buy the Telegraph? well, the, I'll go home and get my news off of the telly!

I still have options. even with a restriction on me getting the Times I can still get other papers, mags as well as Television and Radio!

If you think jail is an appropriate punishment for consuming copyright material without paying for it, you should just say so.

I might even agree ... at least the punishment comes AFTER a proper trial. so you would rather they go to jail where they will have even LESS CHOICES than just removing their NET Connectivity from their home computer for a period of time?!?

Hmm, you tempt me. Perhaps a case could be made that a criminal record, by allowing the community to punish an ex-felon in addition to the punishment imposed by the law, is "cruel and unusual punishment."

But it would be a hijack. I think you're conflating my words with someone else's. well, you did state that losing their net connectivity impacts their employability. ;)

Does it? Where is the clause that says that as well as cutting off the internet connection, French police will enter your house and remove the computer so you can't play games with it?

Or is that just how things would be in JuNii land ...
LOL... I meant his access to the internet from his Computer. :tongue:

No, here you deprive a junky of alcohol, or an alcoholic of access to heroin. so the "pirate" is not deprived access to that he is pirating when his home connection is severed?

I have repeatedly made the point that deprivation of internet goes beyond what is required to prevent repetition of the ALLEGED copyright violation. removing one tool they can use to commit such crimes is beyond what is required? granted I see a problem in preventing the user from going to another computer, but thats not the law going beyond anything, but instead it's a shortfall.

But I've seen you in this mood before. Once you start railing against criminals you lose the ability to distinguish between a kid stealing lollies from a shop and a mass murderer. I'm not expecting much sense from you until you've had your nap. Hmm... So, you have no points to make.

You'd prefer that the cop lies to you? well, your point about "... with a block on the P2P protocol pirates generally use. If they respond by using an encrypted P2P service, then that's that. No proof, no crime."
means that if the service becomes encrypted, then there is no crime since any form of finding them would not then be employed. in other words, you rather those investigating the illegal P2P sites NOT try to find them.

Or perhaps you'd be happier if he just framed up some kid who he's sure, but can't prove in a court, committed some other burglary. is that how things work in BSB land?

It's not such a wild tangent from the subject at all. If a family member who shares your internet connection got the warnings but kept leaching the pirate stuff ... you'd be cut off for something you didn't do. and I did say that was one of the problems. I never said the law/bill was perfect.

But that won't worry you. Consorting with criminals makes you a criminal, right? Zero tolerance ...I agree with you, someone here does need a nap. please be sure to read all my posts when you wake up... M' Kay?

you'll then find out the following...
1) I never said the law was perfect
2) I mentioned that there is nothing to prevent the user from hopping onto another computer.

I can only buy the Telegraph? well, the, I'll go home and get my news off of the telly!

The point being, why should you have to restrict your sources of news and opinion, when your crime had nothing to do with that particular use of the internet?

I still have options. even with a restriction on me getting the Times I can still get other papers, mags as well as Television and Radio!

Are you attempting to extend the analogy?

LOL... I meant his access to the internet from his Computer. :tongue:

But what you actually SAID was:


no, someone breaks a law with their computer, they loose their access to use the computer. makes sense to me.

Now you qualify that to "if someone uses their access to the internet from their computer to break a law, they lose their access to the internet"

What I want to know is whether you see this as punishment or as prevention.

I don't think you can defend it as entirely prevention ... because that creates a situation where the government or an ISP acting on their behalf has acknowledged the existence of a crime but chosen not to punish it.

so the "pirate" is not deprived access to that he is pirating when his home connection is severed?

They are also deprived access to their email, to take just one example.

Suppose that they have applied for a better job than their current one. (Online job offers have in recent years exceeded paper-published job offers, and are almost the exclusive means of applying for IT jobs.) They are waiting for an interview offer or rejection by email.

After being cut off the internet, they are expected to contact the company by mail, and ask for the reply to be sent by mail instead?

In this circumstance, they either tell the employer that they have been cut off the internet (which, if it was a criminal conviction would be the employer's business, but if not, ISN'T) or allow the presumption that they can't keep it together enough to pay their ISP bill. In either case, their chances of getting the job just took a nosedive ... for something that in no way relates to the capacity for the job.

removing one tool they can use to commit such crimes is beyond what is required?

Yes it is. Because the internet is not just "one tool." It's a bag of tools, only one of which they have necessarily abused.

As you note, removal of their personal service will not necessarily prevent them from accessing the same material with someone else's connection (it gives them an incentive in fact, to commit more serious crimes like hacking.)

It's punitive. It is intended to diminish illegal activity by the fear of punishment.

My argument is mainly to the question of whether removal of all internet access is an appropriate punishment for an alleged crime. I am also concerned about punishment before trial. To that I will add that the alleged criminal is not the only one punished -- they may well have internet friends who are deprived of their 'virtual company'; an employer who would contact them by email is deprived of the chance to employ them; a grandmother they have coddled onto the internet, who will lose faith in the whole kit is she doesn't get a reply by bedtime.

If a person steals from a shop, they are punished for that because it is stealing, and it's against the law. Only in a very few cases (kleptomania, or some other mental condition which makes the person behave irrationally in a particular shop) would a judge consider banning that person from shopping to be an appropriate punishment.

If harm is done by piracy (and I believe it is grossly overstated, and the "think of the artists" line of copyright dealers hardly more credible than a fox complaining about the farmer shearing sheep) then that harm should be assessed, and a suitable punishment devised. The punishment should be calibrated according to how easy it is to catch the culprit (piss-easy in this case, copyright holders have done it without any law-enforcement privileges), what benefit the alleged pirate gets from their pirated media, and how much the punishment means to them.

An appropriate punishment is one that is sufficient to make the crime not worthwhile. Obviously, no punishment works perfectly. Wouldn't work perfectly even if it was ultimate punishment (eternal damnation) for a low-return crime, with certainty of prosecution. We aim to reduce any crime to an acceptable level, using punishments and the best rate of prosecution that we can afford.

Cutting off internet is NOT that punishment. It's aimed at kids, whose lives online are worth far more to them than fodder for their iPod. It's disproportionate punishment, which will likely only be applied in a few cases to inspire "shock and awe."

Hmm... So, you have no points to make.

I have made many many points. Among them an observation of your posting habits.

Yes, I know it's akin to flaming. I should not make personal observations. I'll try not to do it again.

well, your point about "... with a block on the P2P protocol pirates generally use. If they respond by using an encrypted P2P service, then that's that. No proof, no crime."
means that if the service becomes encrypted, then there is no crime since any form of finding them would not then be employed.

Yes. Strong-encrypted P2P, strong-encrypted everything, is going to come eventually. We've all got a lot more computing power at each end than we need to view webpages or save a pirated song to disk.

Hell, I'd use an encrypted connection to NSG if I could. I'll put my rants up where anyone can see them ... but I'd rather not have my real-world identity disclosed.

There would be less risk of that if I had point-to-point encryption between me and NSG. Folks at my ISP can read everything I post, and they have my name and address on file. Likewise several police agencies.

Explicitly, in the ISP's right to know what I do with their internet service, or the police to surveille my usage to ensure I am not breaking laws; I accept that. But those commercial and government bodies aren't perfect, they can have rogue employees, they can be hacked. If I had the option, yes I would encrypt my posts all the way to NSG's server.

It's going to happen, and it will be a boon for real criminals, those who would kill dozens of strangers with fertilizer and truck fuel. Those who would abuse and murder a child to produce saleable video. Those whose act of murder would not be worthwhile without a youtube to prove it.

Let's not hurry it along with trying to put the genie of copyrighted media back in the bottle.

Let's leave encryption OUT of P2P. It's not necessary until government forces ISPs to throw away paying customers for the "crime" of watching a video, or hearing a song, without paying for it.

Even if it succeeds in making all French citizens stop putting up or receiving pirated material, the French government will either (a)pay compensation to the ISPs (bad BAD idea, pay internet providers not to provide internet), or (b) lose their internet industry to neighbouring countries, satellite, encrypted DSL, encrypted or plain cable, dammit good old 56k modems.

[/QUOTE] in other words, you rather those investigating the illegal P2P sites NOT try to find them.
[/QUOTE]

I would rather that the producers of child pornography are tracked down and prosecuted, before a court and into a jail cell. I would rather that terrorists be able to freely air their views and recruit, and that some of those recruits make expert witnesses at their trial. I would rather that crime be punished explicitly, that it be a matter of "you did that, therefore we do this, it's the law as defined here."

The Internet is the greatest tool of surveillance ever invented. It's also the greatest tool of conspiracies ever invented. If government goes it hard against "copyright pirates" they invite a huge proportion of internet users to conceal their activities. It's just not worth it! It will cost lives.



I'm really, really, not satisfied with "you used x tool to commit y crime, therefore we punish you for y crime by taking away x tool."

It's kinda kindergarten. As if the tool was the crime.


is that how things work in BSB land?

That is my problem. I go easy on those I respect. I respect those who have made strong arguments. I lose, again and again.

and I did say that was one of the problems. I never said the law/bill was perfect.

I agree with you, someone here does need a nap. please be sure to read all my posts when you wake up... M' Kay?

You aren't defending the bill because it is right. You're defending it because it strikes a blow against the criminals.

Morality based only on what the law says is the weakest morality of all.

It must be hard for you.

you'll then find out the following...
1) I never said the law was perfect
2) I mentioned that there is nothing to prevent the user from hopping onto another computer.

No, no, wait on.

(1) I didn't ask you to defend the law in it's entirety. I accused you of defending the "law" -- which hasn't been implemented yet -- on the basis that anyone who it applied to was a criminal, without trial. You made that assumption, that anyone deprived of internet was necessarily a criminal. I called for a proper judicial process, and appropriate punishment for those found to have broken the law.

(2) Um, if I ever criticized the law, or whatever it is, on the basis that it wouldn't work, I retract that.

I am concerned only that it is excessive, and that the punishment is arbitrary and not in line with other criminal punishments.

Specifically, it removes access to a free press, and removes the right of free speech. Neither of which is germane to copyright infringement.

Further, it inhibits the citizen so punished from freely participating in the job market, airing their views in public fora, conveniently spending money, communicating with their internet friends (freedom of association) ... in short, it deprives them of the entire internet, a bag of tools only one of which they have necessarily abused.

And finally, fatally, it is punishment without trial.

And is "use of the internet" similarly a licensed activity?

If a kitchen is dirty, the eatery has to be prevented from serving food to customers. That is the core of their business, they would only lose money if they stayed open and customers came and ate packed lunches there ... so closing the business is the correct way to make sure they aren't serving food.

Use of the internet is not so simple. The offender has used a P2P program, or a browser, or even email/messaging, to break a law. Depriving them of the internet deprives them of several services, at least one of which they may not have used to do anything illegal.

My computer is private just like my home kitchen. If i am not serving the general public then it is not something that is licenseable. like it is perfectly fine for me to cook my own food in a dirty kitchen, or it is fine for me to drive a car on private property regardless of license status.
Now if i were running a public business online aka Napster and I was making money off these file transfers yes i would need to have my license revoked.

do you have a link to the bill that says this?



Read the article perhaps.
in particular Under the plan, net firms will be enrolled as watchdogs that will keep an eye on consumers indulging in casual piracy.

Those spotted illegally sharing copyrighted works, such as music tracks or movies, will get two warnings, but if they do not heed these then their net connection with be terminated.


Also notice the lack of terms such as conviction and appeal. Last time I checked private net firms are not the police or court of the country of France(though I could be wrong and France may have privatized Those).

I thought it said "neck cut-off", and I thought, "Are we back in the sixteenth century or something?"

http://www.shocktreatmentnetwork.com/Criminologist.jpg

More like this guy, I'd say.

He has no neck, and some evil chicken stepped on his forehead.

Also notice the lack of terms such as conviction and appeal. Last time I checked private net firms are not the police or court of the country of France(though I could be wrong and France may have privatized Those).

On the other hand, French internet providers are private companies, and if a customer is detected abusing the service they provide by using it for illegal ends, then perhaps the company would be quite justified in cutting off service. I mean, it's a voluntary agreement between customer and provider, after all.

On the other hand, French internet providers are private companies, and if a customer is detected abusing the service they provide by using it for illegal ends, then perhaps the company would be quite justified in cutting off service. I mean, it's a voluntary agreement between customer and provider, after all.

that's a private matter not requiring laws. And one I am not concerned with. most service provider contracts the service can be cut off for any reason.

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, if it's true that it's left up to the ISPs to to police the usage and the internet can be cut off without any convictions from a court of law. Especially worrisome when we know that people have been targeted for lawsuits because they've had unsecured WiFi-connections and others have abused that.

I'm happy I won't live in such a society in the forseeable future :wink:

that's a private matter not requiring laws. And one I am not concerned with. most service provider contracts the service can be cut off for any reason.

I think the argument is more "if you find someone doing something illegal, you have to try to stop it."

Read the article perhaps. did, but a NEWS report on a bill/law is not the same as reading the bill/law itself.

Also notice the lack of terms such as conviction and appeal. Last time I checked private net firms are not the police or court of the country of France(though I could be wrong and France may have privatized Those).
funny how there'a alot of things not mentioned in an Article. It could be that the conviction and appeal are not mentioned because there is no change to the fact that a conviction is needed and appeals can be done.
hence why I asked if there was a link (and translation) to the bill/law itself.

But removal of internet is punishment before that appeal.

Just like arresting people on suspicion of doing some crime or other is punishment before trial?

funny how there'a alot of things not mentioned in an Article. It could be that the conviction and appeal are not mentioned because there is no change to the fact that a conviction is needed and appeals can be done.
hence why I asked if there was a link (and translation) to the bill/law itself.

Well...

The French Senate voted 297-to-15 for the proposed graduated-response measure, which would penalise those who download illegal material online with an escalating series of warnings before the ultimate sanction - disconnection from their ISP. But the lower house, the National Assembly, will now get its say on the proposal. The measure was authored last year by Denis Olivennes, chair of entertainment retailer FNAC, after agreement with content companies and ISPs, and would be administered by the creation of a new body, HADOPI.

But, aside from obvious disquiet from digital rights advocates, European Parliamentarians, too, oppose the plan in its current form - they voted last month that HADOPI should require a court order before ordering any disconnections. And the European Commission wants to “avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness, and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of internet access”. This portends a clash between France, which holds the European presidency until December, and the European central government.
Link (http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-frances-three-strikes-nears-statute-books-but-euro-clash-awaits/)

This seems to say that it isn't...

Well...

Link (http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-frances-three-strikes-nears-statute-books-but-euro-clash-awaits/)

This seems to say that it isn't...

HADOPI is the new governing body... right?

now, not knowing how France's government and laws work, "HADOPI should require a court order before ordering any disconnections" is HADOPI being given the power to force the ISP's and content companies to comply with their orders without a court order?

and nothing that the person affected nor the ISP/Conent Companies can't appeal or take legal action on their own.

HADOPI is the new governing body... right?
Seems that way.

now, not knowing how France's government and laws work, "HADOPI should require a court order before ordering any disconnections" is HADOPI being given the power to force the ISP's and content companies to comply with their orders without a court order?
It seems that way. Also, seems like there's an agreement between (certain?) ISP's and the government, so the ISP's will police the traffic and disconnect after handing out warnings, and HADOPI will oversee it all.

and nothing that the person affected nor the ISP/Conent Companies can't appeal or take legal action on their own.
The ISP's won't appeal, I think, seeing as how they seem to be a part of the agreement. What legal remedies the consumer is left with is unclear.

Though it seems clear that no conviction is necessary before the line is cut.

From a previous article at the same website:

European parliamentarians have voted for wide-ranging telecoms regulation reform, including an amendment that would force ISPs to go to court before disconnecting alleged filesharers at content owners’ behest. It’s a measure that threatens France’s three-strikes policy, authored by FNAC chair Denis Olivennes, under which ISPs would warn, warn again, then disconnect those found downloading illegally.

Just like arresting people on suspicion of doing some crime or other is punishment before trial?

I'd argue that arrest should only be used when it isn't possible to definitely identify an alleged criminal. Being under arrest is very inconvenient, so it pressures the arrestee to "prove their innocence" which really no-one should have to do.

It seems that way. Also, seems like there's an agreement between (certain?) ISP's and the government, so the ISP's will police the traffic and disconnect after handing out warnings, and HADOPI will oversee it all.

The ISP's won't appeal, I think, seeing as how they seem to be a part of the agreement. What legal remedies the consumer is left with is unclear.

Though it seems clear that no conviction is necessary before the line is cut.

From a previous article at the same website:

so it seems less of a law enforcement thing and more of the ISP's being given the power to disconnect those found to ignore the warnings.

France, you can't let this happen! Viva la Internet!

I think the argument is more "if you find someone doing something illegal, you have to try to stop it."

I am not a police officer it is not my job to look for that.

I am not a police officer it is not my job to look for that.

There is an obligation on any citizen to report a crime when they are aware of it.

Of course, nobody can prove what you or I are aware of. Unless we (citizens or ISP's) are legally obliged to examine, and legally obliged to audit for legality what we see ...

"I know nothing, Mr Fawlty!"

There are only two ways that French ISP's agreed to this: (a) They don't intend to enforce it, except where someone else does the searching, or (b) they are payed by the government to enforce this law against their own commercial interests.

Pirates are customers. Cutting them off is not in any ISP's commercial interest.

France, you can't let this happen! Viva la Internet!

Please PM me your previous sig. And for fuck's sake stop whinging and put something funny there!

Viva la Internet? Hell, no. Give the spoilt little shit a really hard time. It's growing up all wrong.

There is an obligation on any citizen to report a crime when they are aware of it.

Of course, nobody can prove what you or I are aware of. Unless we (citizens or ISP's) are legally obliged to examine, and legally obliged to audit for legality what we see ...

they should not be legally obligated to do so and in fact should be prevented from doing so with out a court order. Privacy rights and all.


"I know nothing, Mr Fawlty!"

There are only two ways that French ISP's agreed to this: (a) They don't intend to enforce it, except where someone else does the searching, or (b) they are payed by the government to enforce this law against their own commercial interests.

Pirates are customers. Cutting them off is not in any ISP's commercial interest.
Ban France from the internet.

Please PM me your previous sig. And for fuck's sake stop whinging and put something funny there!

Viva la Internet? Hell, no. Give the spoilt little shit a really hard time. It's growing up all wrong.

Well:

A) I don't keep extra copies of my signature ;)
B) I actually thought it was funny... hence I made up Nullsigged... as in no signatured. I'll have something in a little bit.

Does make me thankful that I live in Canada and currently file sharing copyrighted material is still a grey area... for now. Stolen music sounds better. ;)

Not stolen, copyright infringed ;) (unless you stole a cd/dvd/music player with song stored/cassette).

so it seems less of a law enforcement thing and more of the ISP's being given the power to disconnect those found to ignore the warnings.

Not merely given power; Compelled. They will now have to monitor the traffic, examine the content, and keep tabs on what the consumer is downloading. There's no more privacy...

And it should be a law enforcement issue, and not dealt with by the private businesses.

It would be like denying known sea faring pirates, access to ships. They cannot rob without their ship, and thus the crime is stopped from happening. I think this is completely legitimate. However, I will say, i will be pissed if the US tries this and I get my net shut down. :(

not to mention piss off someone at the ISP and they make it look like you have illegal down loads. Cut your internet access with two superficial warnings. There is a reason we require police to do these investigations and not private citizens. Private citizens are assholes. Police are too but at least we can elect someone to get them fired.

It would be like denying known sea faring pirates, access to ships. They cannot rob without their ship, and thus the crime is stopped from happening. I think this is completely legitimate. However, I will say, i will be pissed if the US tries this and I get my net shut down. :(

Except to know someone is a pirate you have to search their ship. That is not something a normal merchant sailor should do. It should only be done by a the navy or coast guard.


ISPs should not get into my business only the police could.

Except to know someone is a pirate you have to search their ship. That is not something a normal merchant sailor should do. It should only be done by a the navy or coast guard.


ISPs should not get into my business only the police could.

Hmm. Perhaps your ISP is more freedom-loving than mine, but the small print of my contract mentions that they can examine all my communications to ensure that I comply with their terms of service. Those terms certainly exclude any illegal activity.

It doesn't worry me too much. Simply, I'm a paying customer and unless I do something to inconvenience their other customers (eg hacking) or get them in trouble with upstream providers (eg sending out spam) their commercial interest dictates that they leave me alone. Two ways: they'd lose my custom, and it would take the time of one of their payed employees.

If my ISP misuses any of information they are privy to (eg buying stuff with my credit card) then (a) they'd lose a customer, perhaps several, and (b) I'd sue them.

Not stolen, copyright infringed ;) (unless you stole a cd/dvd/music player with song stored/cassette).

You wouldn't actually know if you'd stolen their music, in the sense of "permanently deprived of the use of." They may, or may not, have another copy on some other device.

You wouldn't actually know if you'd stolen their music, in the sense of "permanently deprived of the use of." They may, or may not, have another copy on some other device.

Well, you're depriving them the use of that copy.

Damn, I was hoping you were talking about the swashbuckling, "arrrr" saying, jolly-roger waving buccaneer type in some sort of fishing boat incident.

Damn, I was hoping you were talking about the swashbuckling, "arrrr" saying, jolly-roger waving buccaneer type in some sort of fishing boat incident.

Or "face nets" could refer to the burqa. Those sneaky Muslim schoolgirls they have a problem with over there ... pirates I tell ya!

I argue that free access to information is a civil right. Denying people's access to the internet through a three strikes law violates one's ability to freely access information, and therefore violates civil liberties.

Or at least it does in the EU anyway, according to the article. I know that, for instance, here in the U.S. it's not a legal right, but there are a lot of things that should be legal rights that aren't.

Not really, as there are other sources of information.
You know, those big buildings with lots of books inside? Libraryes i think they are named.
If you really do want the information there is always a way to get it. Under Socialist regimes we had samizdaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7706014.stm



Oh, wow, there's a great idea France. Let's deprive people of their civil rights access to information and so on because of piracy. Yeah, that's not going to get abused. :rolleyes:

You can't handle piracy this way, people. You try to handle piracy this way and all you'll do is encourage piracy all the more. Attack the reasons for the piracy, not the piracy itself. Eventually there WILL be illegitimate ISPs set up. All you do is push that moment along faster.


I really gotta wonder how they expect to actually [i]achieve it[i]. A law you can't enforce is worse than no law at all.

Not really, as there are other sources of information.
You know, those big buildings with lots of books inside? Libraryes i think they are named.
If you really do want the information there is always a way to get it. Under Socialist regimes we had samizdaty.

*stares*

Tell me you didn't just hold up the USSR as an example of freedom of the press. Please! Or at least make it more obviously a joke.

Did anyone else read this title as "French Pirates Face Nut Cutoff?"

Glad I'm not living there at the moment. This should be short.