French Parliament Passes Hard Internet Piracy Law

Remove all ads!

I am fairly sure this is a first but this kind of legislation is trying to worm its way into all countries. I have actually swayed a bit on the piracy issue, at least to the point that I do believe people should get paid somehow for what they create. The problem is that the industry is perpetrating major wrongdoings in trying to hunt down people committing minor wrongdoings.

I would much rather have a world with rampant free piracy and where artists and creators have little to no control over their creations than the locked down police state where everyone is a criminal until proven innocent that the entertainment industry is working towards.

 

That's hilarious. I mean, holy ****, that's incredibly funny. The article's a little light on detail so I have to make some assumptions, but the idea that a ten year old the parents are unable to control could cost the family that much money for downloading something is very, very amusing. At least until it happens in my country. And I have kids. Still, funny.

Likewise, how exactly do they plan on determining whether or not it's the children who are illegally downloading whatever it is?

Anyway, I can't wait until the more tech savvy types start putting loads of horse porn* on their parliamentary reps' systems.

*Let's see if anyone gets that reference.

Oh, and hey, it's a good time to quote Eric Flint, so:

And here I thought, when I first read that way back when, that he was exaggerating.

 

AMaster,
in that case parents are well advised to use an unencrypted Wireless LAN. Only God knows who hacked himself into the Wireless LAN to illegally download all those songs - it was neither them nor their children ... Nah, I don't really recommend saying that.

 

No they're not. For the record we don't have the death penalty any longer (the guillotine hasn't been used for 30 years) and we don't have bail either (you can't pay to get a out of jail card over here). We also have a welfare system and big nationalized companies that makes this country look like a socialist state compared to the States. Nevertheless as far as traditions are concerned we share with the US a deep attachment to the values of the Age of Enlightenment, an era that has witnessed the redaction of documents of momentous importance such as the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 and subsequently the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.

As Joacqin points out this kind of legislation is creating a precedent for other countries (especially in Europe) and this is a disquieting thought as such a law is certainly a way of creating some sort of loophole to bypass what is common sense and what according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be inalienable rights (unless I'm mistaken getting a fair trial qualifies). You may think that I'm getting carried away but that is a serious threat to what we call les valeurs républicaines i.e. the values of the French Republic (less misleading than talking about Republican values) as I don't know the exact phrasing in English. But, and you may not know that abroad, in France the Constitution is being flouted by a President who discards the Prime Minister and only acknowledges the existence of the National Assembly when it suits him. The entire political system has crumbled down into bickering cliques. The whole situation is indeed very dire and the future looks very bleak as unemployment soars and the government finds nothing better to do but to sign arms deals giving away our nuclear technology.

I do hope there will be a successful appeal before the highest authorities but for now it looks like wishful thinking.

 

No, I think it will inevitably make its way to court. Someone will be punished, and he will appeal that decision in court. We will hear more of this.

The law is messy - off the top of my head, unsorted, and probably incomplete (and hopefully not erroneous), a list of possible legal problems:

On the most basic level, it infringes on the liberty of the person punished. Sounds trivial, and it is, but still. The punishment is apparently being levelled administratively (like a parking ticket) and not in a court as in a criminal trial (i.e. possible problems with exculpatory evidence and burden of proof. There may thus be due process concerns). In face of the fines and the complete access ban there is the question of proportional punishment. If the culprit uses a non-French European service provider, European law is involved, opening European jurisdiction.

And there is the service provider's side: An access ban infringes on the right of an internet service provider to provide access to that customer, meaning he could have standing to appeal that decision. There is the question whether a law can oblige private entities to enforce a state sanction against a citizen. Here, again, if the service provider is non-French European company, then European law is involved, opening European jurisdiction.

 

I meant an appeal before the Constitutional Council of France so this law can be deemed unconstitutional (as it should be).

I have much hope in European law regarding that matter and I don't think it will be enforced in the end. Still it's good to have some educated insight from people who are knowledgeable about the law.

IMO that's rather a question of PR and flexing one's political muscles so the government can look like it has everything under control and is ready to crack down on offenders. Just plain BS.

 

I can understand the position of the industries: Property rights are meaningless without means to enforce them, and when transgressions go unpunished. They invest, they need a legal framework to earn money with their inventions. And inventions deserve protection because they bring technological progress, which generally benefits society. Property rights do make sense.

That said, I have concerns about the 'propertisation' of about everything, only starting with human genes or the genes of existing plants. The consequences of that can be abhorrent. The use of property rights can be excessive and abusive, and common sense limits need to be imposed on that.

Back to our case here: I also think the entertainment industry is engaging in bigotry here - they are massively lobbying for draconian anti-piracy laws, and claim that the prices can't be lowered, and that they are just so high because of piracy.

Well, I don't think so. Just have a look at Dragon Age. I intend to buy it and have compared prices. On Amazon.de it costs roughly 50 Euro - on Amazon.co.uk it costs, with shipping, about 30 Euro, almost 40% less. Guess where I'll buy. Now, I don't think that the sole difference in price is due to shipping and taxes. Considering that the production for Europe is probably identical (my UK bought Mass Effect for instance offered multi lingual installation) the entertainment industry is obviously having a considerable degree of leeway as far as pricing is concerned (i.e. I doubt that Bioware is selling games at a loss in the UK).

 

I'm not sure how things work in Germany but in Finland we have thing called the credit registry where any disturbances in credit repayment of individuals are listed. When disturbances occur and people fail with their payments their names are erased from the registry. This is important since the credit registry is checked if you're trying to rent an appartment, getting a cellphone subscritpion, internet connection etc. If your name is not on the list you are basically excluded from these services. Losing your name from the credit registry happens without a trial but can be contested in court if necessary. I fail to see how the French law can't work in a similar fashion and how it would be any more restricting, losing your name from the credit registry makes you a second class citizen in this country and getting your name back is a very long and complicated process.

 

I would be very much surprised if said credit card registry in Finland is not run by a private entity. Comparable lists in Germany are. That means civil law applies.

The punishment for piracy under the French law is a state measure. Big difference. That means criminal or administrative law applies, which offers greater protections.

Oddly, while a bad credit ranking has a significant impact on personal lives, it is harder to protect oneself against that as against a government action. The reason for that is probably that when constitutions were written people were primarily concerned about abuse of government power than about abuse of private power - they apparently didn't foresee privates being able to exert that great a leverage.

Today the latter is being defended as utterly normal and unproblematic by those who have faith in the Holy Market where everyone is equal and equally strong, and which's invisible and almighty hand without fail rights all wrongs.

 

You are of course right that the said registry is privately run and while it makes a technical difference I'm unsure if it has any practical signifigance. I mean they could go on and create a pirate registry which keeps track on everyone's piracy ranking and if it gets too high no ISP will provide you with a connection anyhow and the same results have been reached, the main difference being only who runs the registry.

 

We may not agree but I'm convinced that some things are just too important to be administrated by private organizations.

 

I wonder what is most offensive to the entertainment industry, when something is pirated:
1) The fact that a pirate has stolen their intellectual property, and is using it without permission. or...
2) The fact that the pirate is entertained for free, and an opportunity for profit is now gone.

What I think, is that the entertainment industry is using argument 1) as a more easily defendable position, while in reality they only care about 2).
Commercialism is taking on more and more extreme forms lately, and this kind of legislation is on the forefront of the battle. Privacy, wallets, hearts and minds are at stake here. The internet is the only free medium we have at the moment, uncontrolled by state, religious, or business interests. If we allow it to be heavily monitored, and legislated, then such a thing will be considered normal within a few years.

 

Tal,
when 24,99 Pounds is 30% off, then the actual price is 35,70 Pounds - which amounts to ~ 39,50 Euro, which is still 10,50 Euro short, and 20% cheaper. And then, even on pre-order with discount they probably are not making a loss.

I think the 25 Pound figure is a standard price for new games at Amazon.co.uk anyway. They'll sell Mass Effect 2 for that, and iirc I paid that for Mass Effect as well.

 

You've got money on your mind, Tal. The explanation of 'free' was in the same sentence:
"The internet is the only free medium we have at the moment, uncontrolled by state, religious, or business interests."

 

Morgoroth, the difference in your example is that a private industry can't make itself mandatory. If someone opened up a "piracy ranking" company that ISPs could purchace "piracy rankings" from, how many ISPs do you really think would fork over the cash? On the other hand, if the government does it, they can make it mandatory.

 

The credit registry and its uses and its implications are regulated around here by law, I think the same would be possible even with the case of piracy. Government can regulate something without being directly involved. If say a ISP could be heavily fined for not cutting off pirates or selling connections to known pirates there would be a motivation for them to find out wether or not the said person had a mark in the piracy register. Of course it might as well be done by the government directly, but if there's a fear for increasing government control the system can certainly be privatized as well.