France passes La Hadopi AGAIN

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by FixB

That's not often true though (I received at home no less than 4 wifi networks with signals nearly as good as mine ).

Depends where you are and lot of other stuff
From my room, my neighbor wi-fi will hardly be seen. Even when upstairs, my own network is slow.
If you're in apartment that's an other mater.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Depends where you are and lot of other stuff
From my room, my neighbor wi-fi will hardly be seen. Even when upstairs, my own network is slow.
If you're in apartment that's an other mater.

Also depends on what version of wi-fi you're using (B, G, N, etc).

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I would remind you that news items often do not disclose affiliations between researchers and who paid for the research, etc.

I have no doubt that the RIAA et al are unlikely to produce objective surveys. At the same time, it's absurdly obvious that copyright infringement is massive and routine.

To wit: Sweden's Internet traffic dropped by 30% when an anti-piracy law was recently enacted.

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

The real trouble is : what if you get wrongly accused ?

Again, this particular incarnation does not provide sufficient legal review. If it did, this would not be any more or less an issue than being accused of any other sort of misconduct.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Under this law, it's treated as neither. 3 strikes (accusations) and you're out. No civil or criminal trial. No chance to defend yourself.

This is incorrect. With HADOPI 2, the accused can request a hearing and go before a judge (instead of a HADOPI panel). The potential problem is that statements made by the Hadopi board are considered to be "proven" and automatically treated as evidence that the accused is required to refute (hence the claims of the violation of the presumption of innocence).

And again, that language in HADOPI 1 resulted in a rejection of the law by the Constitutional Council, and is likely to do so again.

Or to put this another way: The apparent violation of the presumption of innocence is not a necessary or even vital component to this law. You can still have an expedited or simplified process, which allows for valid legal review, without requiring the presumption of guilt, which results in suspending an offender's Internet access for a year.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I have no doubt that the RIAA et al are unlikely to produce objective surveys. At the same time, it's absurdly obvious that copyright infringement is massive and routine.

To wit: Sweden's Internet traffic dropped by 30% when an anti-piracy law was recently enacted.

I suspect it would be instructive to also know how much music/movie/game purchases rose.

I'd be surprised if it was more than 3%.

- Ahi

[kacir]

If you disconnect the household, you are also punishing another 2-5 people.

Imagine that a 17 year old son downloads something he shouldn't have. The household gets disconnected.
All the rest of the family is denied access to their email, education, ability to shop online, ability to do internet banking.

If I was member of such household I would immediately go to the constitutional court - collective punishment is considered barbaric in the vast majority of civilized world.

[Jellby]

A 17 year old would at least be a minor, and his parents are up to some point responsible of his actions... I'd choose an older son for the example

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Y'know, I don't think this iteration provides enough legal review to protect the accused, especially given potential issues with wireless AP's. But I'm having a hard time viewing this law as Pure Unadulterated Evil. Why should I feel sympathy for you, if you're infringing enough copyright for someone to enter repeated complaints, and you receive multiple warnings, and keep doing it anyway?

One day, you recieve a warning. You haven't been doing and file sharing. But the harvested data clearly shows the tracker sent you the headers for what it thought was a file. Why? Because this is something trackers /do/, to confuse the record.

ahi - They've fallen 15% and the Swedish music business in particular currently having a major panic. (Sales have been in freefall in Sweden for a long time, and the bill was sold on the basis it'd change everything...)

[Hellmark]

From my house, there is 4-5 visible networks. Granted, 3 are mine, but still got those two other neighbors!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or to put this another way: The apparent violation of the presumption of innocence is not a necessary or even vital component to this law.

Actually, that is the entire point of this law. Get rid of that part, and what you're left with is basically existing copyright law. The whole reason for the new law is to bypass the normal procedure and get around the presumption of innocence.

If they actually did take someone to court with sufficient evidence, and prove that they were guilty (as opposed to just assuming it), then the penalty copyright law already provides would be much higher than just having your ISP cut off your access.

The reason for HADOPI is so that the RIAA doesn't have to go through all of that (because they know that in the majority of cases they can't).

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Actually, that is the entire point of this law....

Then allow me to rephrase.

I'd be fine with an expedited process (akin to having a specialized court for drug-related issues) with escalating warnings, culminating in a 1 year ban. As long as there is legal review and no presumption of guilt, it's fine, and would be a constitutionally valid version of the law (from what I can tell).

By the way, if someone in your household is using your connection and you keep getting warnings, again I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. You were warned, the consequences will hopefully be made clear to you, and especially if it's your child, no one else is going to step in and fix the situation for you.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

They've fallen 15% and the Swedish music business in particular currently having a major panic. (Sales have been in freefall in Sweden for a long time, and the bill was sold on the basis it'd change everything...)

Oh?

Sweden sees 100% increase in legal downloads after law was enacted
And this article claims physical and digital sales are both up for the first half of 2009, in part due to the new law

I'm not finding evidence of a 15% drop in sales, then again Google News is b0rked today.

I definitely concur that piracy is not a one-to-one sales loss, but that doesn't alter the fact that infringement is infringement.

[Hellmark]

The 15% drop may be a drop in just CD sales. Which in the US, the increase of digital sales also saw a drop of CD sales. If you only want a song or two, why buy the entire album?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

By the way, if someone in your household is using your connection and you keep getting warnings, again I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. You were warned, the consequences will hopefully be made clear to you, and especially if it's your child, no one else is going to step in and fix the situation for you.

I'd be affected less if the government forbade me to receive snailmail and use a telephone, than when I were forbidden to use the internet. Quite a few government services are already most easily (if not yet solely) accessible via the internet; being cut off from my email, as well as the rest of it would be on the order of taking away my right to vote.
As such, losing internet access over 'conviction' in a civil infringement suit (or whatever you would want to call it) is not at all proportional to the infraction.

Sweden sees 100% increase in legal downloads after law was enacted

2*0=still 0

And this article claims physical and digital sales are both up for the first half of 2009, in part due to the new law

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and correlation != causation. I doubt their methodology is quite sound enough to be able to assert this with any degree of confidence. The lay term, which is luckily apt, is "wishful thinking", and it's meaningless if nothing worse.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

The 15% drop may be a drop in just CD sales.

Read the 2nd article. Physical media sales up 30%, digital 57%. I.e. unless or until proven otherwise, the "15% drop" statistic is apparently wrong.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I'd be affected less if the government forbade me to receive snailmail and use a telephone...

Keep in mind the judgment blocks access only to your home. You can still access via work, library, Internet cafe etc. Not sure about via mobile phone.

And I think you underestimate the value of paper mail and the telephone.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and correlation != causation. I doubt their methodology is quite sound enough to be able to assert this with any degree of confidence. The lay term, which is luckily apt, is "wishful thinking", and it's meaningless if nothing worse.

*shrug* Exhibit as much confirmation bias as you like, the "mere correlation" makes a fair amount sense -- as does attributing the 30% plunge in Internet traffic to the day the law kicked in. Or do you have a better explanation for an increase in legal sales in the middle of the worst recession in over 60 years?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Keep in mind the judgment blocks access only to your home. You can still access via work, library, Internet cafe etc. Not sure about via mobile phone.

And I think you underestimate the value of paper mail and the telephone.

I'm not talking about how I could make do with paper and telephones, I'm talking about how often I now use paper mail and a telephone to communicate with friends, acquaintances, and more official purposes. I'd be unable to keep up with at least half my friends without it, and I can't imagine it's meant to deprive you of your social life, as that would be a rather sadistic way to 'punish' someone.
In any case, it would seem that you forgot to answer my main claim, that is, that this kind of punishment is almost unheard-of in a civil suit. It's utterly unclear what you're being punished for, as the industry could just as easily report you for 'making available' a single file as 20,000, with no need whatever to prove that there are actual damages. So you're punished "on principle" because a business wants to punish you for not consuming enough of their goods. Sounds worse than communism to me.
Again, the punishment is totally unbefitting the infraction.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'd be fine with an expedited process (akin to having a specialized court for drug-related issues) with escalating warnings, culminating in a 1 year ban. As long as there is legal review and no presumption of guilt, it's fine, and would be a constitutionally valid version of the law (from what I can tell).

That's not what the people who are pushing this law want. Legal review and no presumption of guilt is not in their agenda.