France's controversial "three-strikes" internet law is getting another do-over. Originally rejected by the country's National Assembly, revised then declared unconstitutional, the anti-file sharer bill has yet again been revamped and passed for consideration by the French constitutional court. The new version of the bill, like …
Guilty, Guilty, or.... Guilty
Is the choice the Judge has to make.
It is worrying to see that these blinkered morons who just trot out the shite peddled to them by the music industry, just keep on doing it.
Surely there has to be proof of a "crime".
Lets see them pass it and then look forward the first case when a falsely accused person takes the whole festering pile of them to the cleaners.
"The new version of the bill, like its predecessors, is intended to temporarily disconnect individuals from the internet if they are accused of online copyright infringement three times."
May I be the first to accuse each of the authors of the bill of copyright infringement?
Nasty Sham Process
The judge doesn't decide guilt or read evidence, he determines the sentence. It's a sham judicial process, he is there to give it a gloss of judicial process.
Sarkozy was such a mistake.
The classic example i can think of is a Browser Cache.
All those "infringements" every time you surf the .net.
I often check the cache to see what the little darlings have been upto. All those pretty pictures. Guilty your honour. Best ban the Internet i guess.
Click... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H no dial tone.
... that new version is even more unconstitutional and dull than the original one.
The killer point (which makes that new version totally dull, unconstitutionality withstanding) being, the first bill states that "if you fail to secure your (wifi) access point, you can't be held responsible of the actions of the one who cracked it". Now, under the rule of presumption of innocence which is introduced by the legal process (even if it is a fast-track one), THEY have to prove that your Wifi got cracked, which is almost impossible.
Also, encrypted networks, yadda yadda.
How ridiculous can our <strike>president</strike> <strike>king</strike> emperor get ?
three strikes ... third swing ...
Well yes I suppose it is stating the bleedin' obvious, but ... doesn't that mean that if they get it wrong this time they're out, and it's gone for good? That'd be too much to hope for.
Who the hell submits these law parodies again and again?
Do these come directly from the prez' office whenever a RIAA representative leaves out the front door of the Elysée?
After the USA
France seem to be the new MPAA/RIAA local branch.
what if i summit the the ip address of all the computers been used to illegally snoop on internet users? will they be banned too?
Ah, see the democracy...
Keep submitting a law again and again until they get it through.
Kinda like the EU constitution, sorry, treaty.
Or is it three fouls?
Open wifi and civil dis-obedience!
These Carla Bruni laws are something else. Carla Bruni must be giving Sarkozy a good deal of domestic grief on this one.
Any government or any of its agents are unlikely to create universal access to what are IP based Data transport networks, unless there is a good many communities sharing their connectivity using wifi.
The notion of a judge or any other agent ordering a service to be cut off as a consequence of a wifi connection being abused is just a bit stupid. If evidence is available, trace it to a mac code of the individual device.
The more folk open their wifi connections the better. We are partaking in a bandwidth scarcity exercise if we do not.
Just like Speeding Tickets
It will end up just like speeding tickets. You will be sent a letter saying
'We have evidence that you have been downloading illegal material if you want to contest the evidence please wait while we issue a summons. If you wish to admit the offence then sign this form and return it to us and we shall issue a fine and a slap on the wrist.
Simple nothing to prove as most people will admit the offence rather than go to court. Some people will arguy the toss but not many.
Imagine all those £60 (or whatever the RIAA deems acceptable) fines rolling in. Pefect solution
Big Brother? Well who is going to issue the tickets
"arguing net access is a human right."
So, if someone doesn't have a computer, society is obliged to provide him with one? After all, without some form of device, that "internet access" doesn't really achieve much, does it?
NZ just got the rehash hadopi v3.0 too...
Why do our govts seem to want more and more money for doing less and less, just buying into whatever franchised madness the UN-sponsored pressure groups hand out.
Whatever happened to policy development, open-ness, consultation - oh thats right it is a PRISON PLANET!
Mr RIAA, you can go fuck yourself if you think you can leech the value out of the local music industry with payolas, collusion and all your govt-bothering. Your business model is all fucked up, and is shown up to be the scam that it is.
Any govt that buys into this is essentially robbing and suppressing their own culture.
As a musician, I reserve the right to beg steal or borrow whatever content these leeches happen to lose onto the Interweb, and any fucking court, jester or 'representative' will get an earfull about it all.
RIAA Member Corporations steal and suppress peoples culture, so to be fair we can copy your works with impugnity for personal use.
Remember that $30 CD only costs $8 max to make, disty and shelve.
YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. THE SCARCITY MODEL IS A LIE HERE.
Fuck the DIRTY BLUDGING RIAA scammers up - simply dont pay...
Otherwise have a nice day readers.
This rant is not copyright, you are free to jamm it up whoever comes knocking at the door...
Get the facts right
"arguing net access is a human right". This is not true. This was not in the original judgement. As powerful as the fourth estate is, the fact that flawed information is repeatedly published does not make it true.
time to downsize the 4th estate lobby
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The relationship between aspiring politicians and media moguls has always given too many swing votes to what the tabloids decide to publish during an election campaign. So the newspaper owners say what copyright protection and extension laws they want and politicians who want support from mass media say "how soon ?" .
The alternative to fighting the resulting bad laws which violate the US 4th ammendment and ECHR article 8 through constitutional law courts or civil disobedience is by supporting Pirate Parties, who now have their first representative in the European Parliament. Having politicians of other parties compete for pirate swing votes forces them to think differently compared to having them compete for mass media support for swing votes of dimwits influenced by tabloid editors.
If i understand it correctly, the French will fine accused file sharers on the third accusation without a court or defence. It contravenes the European human rights act, and France must have it on their own law books. No one can be forced to pay a penalty without a defence, not even for a parking ticket.
Instead of the fine, plump for internet disconnection...
... and then say it wasn't your fault when you couldn't submit your tax return online.
Don't mess with the French
they will probably threaten to blow up an ISP if denied access.
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked