French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

sorry, i didn't confirm any such thing. i've not heard so far any specific details of how it's to be enacted and you can't claim to know for sure how it will work.

Well, that's a slightly odd thing to say, given that you've just told us all (post #13) that it "will lead to many false accusations and errors". You are so confident of that, and yet you have "no specific details of how it's to be enacted"? How can you possible KNOW that it "will lead to many false accusations and errors" if you have no idea how it's going to be enacted? It MAY do, but you cannot possibly state as an indisputable fact that it's going to do so.

My knowledge of what it's about comes - I'd guess - from the same source that yours does: news reports.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Well, that's a slightly odd thing to say, given that you've just told us all (post #13) that it "will lead to many false accusations and errors". You are so confident of that, and yet you have "no specific details of how it's to be enacted"? How can you possible KNOW that it "will lead to many false accusations and errors" if you have no idea how it's going to be enacted? It MAY do, but you cannot possibly state as an indisputable fact that it's going to do so.

My knowledge of what it's about comes - I'd guess - from the same source that yours does: news reports.

what i know is that it will involve monitering traffic, identifying ip addresses, and cutting off your internet connection if they SUSPECT you of illegal downloads. you mention specific details such as "within 6 months" or "within 1 year" ; i've seen no mention of that.

and as many many others have made clear, yes, this method is about as far from "foolproof" as it is possible to get.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

what i know is that it will involve monitering traffic, identifying ip addresses, and cutting off your internet connection if they SUSPECT you of illegal downloads. you mention specific details such as "within 6 months" or "within 1 year" ; i've seen no mention of that.

The specific news report I read was:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/

"The Register" is normally a reliable source of information about such things, but it may of course be wrong.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The specific news report I read was:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/

"The Register" is normally a reliable source of information about such things, but it may of course be wrong.

having now read that article, i'm all the more stunned that you don't see any interest in addressing the very important points it makes against this law, for instance :

A clearly scandalised Jean Dionis du Séjour railed at the poor attendance for this key measure, as, he claimed, just one in forty deputies bothered to turn up for the final debate.

There is still the small issue of whether the law itself is legal. Nicolas Maubert, an attorney with law firm Gide Loyrette Nouel, has argued that the law might still be challenged by France's judicial body, as blocking internet access could breach constitutional protections guaranteed by the French Constitution.

A further obstacle to the loi Hadopi may yet be the European Parliament, which this week voted to guarantee internet access to all citizens as a fundamental human right.

(emphasis mine)

and please note that the Register also uses the word "suspects" and not "proves".

[HarryT]

I agree that it is scandalous that only 1 in 40 deputies bothered to turn up for the debate. Whether or not the law is "legal", I'm not qualified to judge. Flawed though this law may be, I'm just happy that at least one country actually seems to be trying to take the huge problem of illegal downloading seriously. Whether the law is "good" or "bad", the French government is to be congratulated for realising that this is something that does matter, while others are just turning a blind eye to it.

[zelda_pinwheel]

i'm afraid i really don't find that "end justifies the means" argument even slightly convincing, particularly when the means are so clearly flawed, disproportionate, anti-constitutional and illegal as in this case. and also particularly as this discussion is precisely about the proposed *means* of addressing the issue, and not the issue itself.

that's the same argument often used to justify torture, are you in favor of that too ?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No it doesn't. I described the way that the law works in post #14 of this thread, and Zelda confirmed that my understanding of its operation was correct.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works, and Zelda did not confirm anything of the sort.

The words used in the articles are "allegation" and "suspect" .... neither of which means anything more than an accusation. No proof .... just an accusation by someone.

As mentioned, if you are ok with that, fine and dandy. Just make sure you don't have anyone in your life who wants to accuse you of something you haven't done. I prefer the innocent until proven guilty idea myself.

You appear to be in favor of punishing people and waiting until later to find out if they have done anything wrong. Interesting concept, but not one I can support.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

that's the same argument often used to justify torture, are you in favor of that too ?

Depends on the circumstances. Let's say that you knew that a terrorist had knowledge which could allow you to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill thousands of people, and that the only way to obtain that information was through torture. Would torturing one person to prevent the deaths of 10,000 innocent people be morally justifyable? You decide.

[Nate the great]

Harry, a citizen of Great Britain, has uploaded to MobileRead a number of books by the British author P.G Wodehouse. The books in question are still in copyright in GB, but not the USA (where he got the files and where MobileRead has its servers).

Under this law, Harry would have lost his internet connection.

[HarryT]

Yes, and quite right too! I've also done 35mph in a 30 zone, so lock me up and throw away the key!

Really, do you think that this disqualifies me from believing downloading material illegally from current, living, authors, is wrong?

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

How do you know, without any doubt, that the terrorist actually has the knowledge? If they told you they had the knowledge, how do you know they're not lying? Maybe in order to buy time for the person who really does have that information to carry out their plans.

If some-one else told you, how do you know they're telling the truth? Maybe they've been misinformed? Maybe the information that was gleaned from them under torture was only said to make the torture stop? Maybe they're also lying to direct the attention away from the person who really does have the plans.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Depends on the circumstances. Let's say that you knew that a terrorist had knowledge which could allow you to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill thousands of people, and that the only way to obtain that information was through torture. Would torturing one person to prevent the deaths of 10,000 innocent people be morally justifyable? You decide.

I get to decide?? Morally, it may be, however, in this country (because we are signatories of the Articles of the Geneva Convention) it is illegal.

Even if I murdered someone I knew was about to murder someone else, am I guilty of murder? Morally, maybe not, legally .... absolutely.

Is France morally justified in persecuting innocent people who are "alleged" to have done something wrong? No idea, if they in fact did nothing wrong, then maybe not. Are they making it legal to do so? Yes, they are.

And, where your argument dissolves into a mess of poop is where you use the word "knew" .... try substituting "suspected" rather than knew. Say you suspected that someone might kill 10,000 innocent people .... no proof ... and your suspicions might not even be reasonable. Still good to go on torture?

In your view of the world, the Spanish Inquisition must have been one long picnic, with cake and punch.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

How do you know, without any doubt, that the terrorist actually has the knowledge? If they told you they had the knowledge, how do you know they're not lying? Maybe in order to buy time for the person who really does have that information to carry out their plans.

If some-one else told you, how do you know they're telling the truth? Maybe they've been misinformed? Maybe the information that was gleaned from them under torture was only said to make the torture stop? Maybe they're also lying to direct the attention away from the person who really does have the plans.

Precisely. That's why I said "You decide". It's not a question that has a "black and white" answer, and anyone who thinks that it has clearly hasn't thought the issue through properly.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. That's why I said "You decide". It's not a question that has a "black and white" answer, and anyone who thinks that it has clearly hasn't thought the issue through properly.

Our government doesn't bother with the philosophical niceties, they just off-shore their torturing requirements.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Our government doesn't bother with the philosophical niceties, they just off-shore their torturing requirements.

I'd like to think that the people involved in "Extraordinary Rendition" do consider these matters, Sparrow. Is it justifyable to torture someone if you think that they have information that may save the lives of innumerable innocent people? It's a decision that I wouldn't like to have to make. Can you honestly say that there are no circumstances in which such things can be morally justified? I'm not sure that I could do.