Print 11 comment(s) - last by SiliconDoc.. on Apr 25 at 4:55 AM

Three Strikes Law out in France

Internet piracy is a hot topic issue.  Across America and other industrialized nations, millions of people are file sharing, illegally transferring copyrighted works.  While this behavior is certainly illicit, the record labels have struggled with exactly how to prosecute so many people.  Meanwhile, plagued with mismanagement and poor releases coupled with a bad economy, corporate record labels like Sony, EMI, and BMG have seen their revenues plunge.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), parent organization of RIAA, believed it had finally found answer -- lobby for the enactment of anti-piracy laws that would force ISPs to sever the internet of those sharing copyrighted works.  The only problem was no one opted for such laws that would potentially cut millions of internet-using citizens from the internet.

At last, France became the first to officially make headway towards passing such legislation, thanks to personal support from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  The bill passed through the French Senate and only awaited the National Assembly -- France's equivalent to the House of Representatives.  The bill would create a "three-strikes" policy for file sharers. 

The government would pick up the tab (at taxpayers' expense) to police the internet and search for file sharers.  If someone was found file sharing, they would be sent a warning email.  This would be followed with a letter to the internet service provider (ISP)-provided address.  On the "third strike" the ISP would cancel their service, and they would be disallowed to purchase services from other ISPs.

A major obstacle was European Union laws that prevented such policies.  However, in a special EU meeting of Prime Ministers and Presidents, President Sarkozy bullied the other leaders into agreeing to overturn the ruling, essentially throwing out the European Parliament's consensus.

However, the bill has been struck down by the National Assembly, ultimately undone by a variety of opposing views.  One major sticking point was the reaction from ISPs who were concerned about potentially losing millions in revenue by being forced to sever large number of customers.  Then there were concerns voiced over increased government surveillance and the fact that hackers or internet squatters could usurp innocent users’ connections and lead to their ouster. 

The record industry has struggled in court over proving that file uploads and downloads originated from a specific person's hardware -- a particularly thorny issue for colleges and other locations where multiple people can use the same IP address.

Socialist parliamentarian Patrick Bloche cheered the rejection of the bill, which he called "dangerous, useless, inefficient, and very risky for us citizens."  Two members of Mr Sarkozy's own majority government party broke party lines to vote in opposition to the bill.

Beaten back, President Sarkozy still has plans to punish the pirates.  He and his ministers are working on revised legislation with softer terms, which they will try to reintroduce later in the year.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

welcome to last week
By MadMan007 on 4/16/2009 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
I saw this headline and thought 'Hey great! They've rejected it even when it was proposd again and most of the representatives were there to vote.' Then I checked the link...from last week...and read this whole story. You got my hopes up.

RE: welcome to last week
By StevoLincolnite on 4/16/2009 10:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
Stuff like this is happening all over the world, 34 film and affiliated companies here in Australia are suing our 3rd largest ISP "iiNet" because they wouldn't pass "Copyright infringement" notices onto consumers, iiNet's defense is that they passed the Copyright Infringement notices onto the Police, but apparently that's not good enough, Pirates should loose access to the internet.

If the media company's actually sat-up and released services that enticed the consumer to pay for them at a REASONABLE cost then there wouldn't be as large of an issue, DVD's are still $20 or more, and I don't want to get started on the price of Blue-ray... Then you have a good 10-20 minuets of "Notices" before the shows/movies start.

I used to have Austar "Pay Television" which was $110 a month (Satellite) and half the channels repeat previous episodes/movies and are ridden with advertising, hence I got rid of that service (It was my only option) and downloaded TV episodes from the torrents and watched them when I wanted and without half an hours worth of repetitive advertising.

There needs to be more iTune's styled services where movies are cheap without DRM and without Advertising, or perhaps release a cheaper version of a Show/Movie with advertising, and a slightly more expensive version without.

Netflix? I would love to have it, but it doesn't exist here yet. :(

Unfortunately my options are limited when it comes to streaming video services here in Rural Australia, and TV just plain sucks, I do however buy boxsets of my favorite TV shows when they come available like StarGate, Battlestar Galactica, Heroes etc' but the prices are exorbitant to say the least, but TV shows that are good get my hard earned cash.

Unfortunately most of the crap that comes on TV now days is hardly entertaining.

RE: welcome to last week
By ayat101 on 4/16/2009 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
What TV stations SHOULD offer are regionally coded and perhaps personally tailored ads slotted in HIGH quality downloadable files. The ads would be glued in the file when the download is requested. Even offer a player that will check if each ad is watched and upload that info to the server (WITH USER PERMISSION!). You could slot web links into the ads, etc... and so on, and so on. There are various possible schemes for designing systems like this, but whatever and to each their fancy...

Then there would be NON NEED for torrents or illegal P2P, but the advertising revenue system could be maintained.

Of course the two side effects of this would be the canibalisation of hardcopy sales (DVD and BluRay), and the death of classic tv stations.

I am not entirely sure if the death of hardcopies would reduce revenues and if so by how much? Or if targeted advertising would actualy increase the money earned through its higher value? Either way keeping hardcopy market around is artificial and not needed for the consumer.

The death of tv stations in favour of on demand viewing is the BIGGIE. Not unlike newspapers and magazines are already dying. There are LARGE sums of money involved and the tv industry will fight this.

Of course there are new opportunities to reinvent tv stations or networks are content servers and advertising sellers... or if they do not reinvent themselves, somebody else will move in and take up this business niche.

So this whole anti-P2P and anti-piracy IS NOT about stealing and people not getting paid for their work as a result. It is ENTIRELY about OLD INTERESTS unwilling to change the way they do business. The illegal downloads scene is a symptom of TPTB in a way unwilling to get paid for their work in a consumer friendly system. Sooner or later what I describe is the future of entertainment delivery, it's just a question of who of the existing players will adapt and how soon and how well they will do it. For me I say: FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE! :)

An annoying side-effect of this conflict is that the social group most likely to use P2P to get entertainment is the most desired advertising demographic. This group likes to watch certain type of shows, and then these shows have lower ratings because they leak viewers to downloads. The end result is shows get cancelled. For example how many sci-fi shows are getting axed in recent memory? How hard is it for them to survive these days?

RE: welcome to last week
By kattanna on 4/16/2009 10:21:52 AM , Rating: 2

theres the reuters article from yesterday talking about the new vote

Yeah and in other news,
By Chocobollz on 4/18/2009 11:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
someone who killed someone with a knife got banned from buying any knives.

P.S. Have you actually heard a news like that? If you do then WTH?? Internet is just a tool, so why do they'd have to be banned from using the internet? Why don't you just cut out their arms and legs so they can't harm anything anymore?

RE: Yeah and in other news,
By FaceMaster on 4/19/2009 7:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
why do they'd have to be banned from using the internet? Why don't you just cut out their arms and legs

You sound as if you'd prefer to have your limbs cut off...

RE: Yeah and in other news,
By mindless1 on 4/19/2009 7:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I've heard news like that. Felons prevented from buying guns? DUI conviction prevents driving a car? Child molester prevented from living in certain areas? Abusive parent prevented from having custody of child?

I'm not suggesting it's the right answer to the problem, but even in your example the killer is banned from buying knives since they are, if found guilty of murder, tending to end up in a prison with restrictions against that.

Since the internet has such great potential for information exchange it does seem overly harsh to ban access, the modern day equivalent of cutting off someone from TV, telephone and mail, but so long as content providers are given attention instead of ignored, lawmakers are forced to decide between turning a blind eye to what appears to be crimes taking place and doing what little they can to effect change given limited alternatives.

Personally, I'm move in favor of a $100 fine like one would pay from a speeding ticket, and a points system where after a certain total internet access is denied for a short period of time, a few months.

RE: Yeah and in other news,
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 4:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to have failed to notice the government is going to "pay for it all" but apparently not for the sales losses of the ISP's, but at least in many ways, the lives they destroy with their FOREVER crap they NEVER put on their own involved in so much more misconduct it is LAUGHABLE that they have a moral right to police others.
This whole deal is the beginning or the lynchpin perhaps of the government becoming a greedy, taxing, burdensome, bloated, tyrannistic, quid pro quo, backroom deal making monster of the internet.
Every right is becoming a priveledge the overlords monitor and regulate -
Here in the USA the tard commies in power now want everyones medical records, their fingerprints, their urine sample results, their dna code, their politcal beliefs, their surfing habits, their expenditures, their homes, their cars, and even their wal mart purchases on a government anti crime anti terrorist "secure" database - where the monsters in power can make all the decisions for everyone with their giant number crunching CRAY systems. Goverment solutions for EVERYTHING with their giant CRAY machines - solve the problems of humanity.... if they just have enough data - oh the efficiencies they claim they could reach...

By Hakuryu on 4/16/2009 4:56:53 PM , Rating: 1
If they really want to stop these people from sharing copyrighted works, why not ban them from being able to buy copyrighted works? Share a movie and you no longer can buy a movie seems much more logical than share a movie and you no longer receive email, pay bills online, find out what the weather is going to be like, look up goverment resources, update your OS, or any of the million other things you can do on the internet.

Of course it would be impossible to enforce, but sponsoring a bill like that might show how silly the current one is. The IFPI is all for trying to stop piracy, unless the pirates themselves cannot purchase their entertainment to begin with.

By mindless1 on 4/19/2009 8:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
Since more and more purchases are occurring online, banning internet access may indeed stop people from buying a lot of copyrighted works.

You already knew the answer though, that they are two separate acts, buying and sharing, and that the whole point behind the copyright is a means to reserve control in order to be paid, you have to look at the purpose of a law to see what is intended as justice.

By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 4:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
You bring up a good point, certainly only the top of the iceberg, especially going forward.
They will soon not send paper bills for utlities - and many other things - so what the tyranny will wind up doing is hiring a bunch of government payees to slave monitor those they've banned from access.
It will be a whole new area of "law enforcement" where in order to keep those banned " in the populace and living a prodcutive life as much as possible for the honor and glory of the state" - they will have their government minders checking their bills and accessing the government controlled interface to pay it all up for the monitored little slaves that got banned. LOL
If they're renting, the lord of the property will have to cooperate with the law enforcement billpay for banned division or face felony charges for insubordination to the borg collective.
Meanwhile, the "good people" can scream as usual like holier than thou masters of decency and purity that the skum deserves death and is getting off lightly, as the minority report matrix swirls in around them , until they are trapped - and their children are nothing more than a number in a computer - that the government knows all about from birth onward - their entire life on digital record.
Oh it's almost here.
They won't take no for an answer, either.
"Safeguards" and "extremely respectable government servants of the federal civilian population" are in charge and management, so don't you DARE accuse them.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki