Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Call me naive if you wish but yes, I do think so. The courts treat everybody equally.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I'm sorry, but that really is naive, no matter where one happens to live.

I'm not sure I would call it naive, but to just assert that the courts treat everyone equally... I almost find it kind of offensive. There are many people who have been disenfranchised by the courts. To claim that the courts do, not should, but do, treat everyone equally is to pretend that those people and their situations do not exist.

I find that very upsetting, from a perspective of both feminism and civil rights, and oh... several others, too. And I don't think it should be presented as an opinion -- it's a factual statement that is either true or false, and I would say that this particular statement is demonstrably false.

[plib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Call me naive if you wish but yes, I do think so. The courts treat everybody equally.

Would you by any chance be interested in a vacation home in Florida?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Interesting thread. So after two years of a tougher copyright enforcement law, what have we learned?

1. France has some how not descended into tyranny
2. A lot more people are obeying the law at a comparatively modest cost in law enforcement.

Who woulda thunk it?

Score one for law enforcement!

One of the benefits of law enforcement is that it creates space for creation of LEGAL services. There would never have been an Itunes if Napster had been allowed to flourish and would have never been a Spotify if the illegal networks had been allowed to proceed unchecked in Sweden.

Indeed, Spotify and iTunes would never have existed if piracy existed...except that they did, with iTunes flourishing. And just as a side note, online MP3 sales really took off for iTunes when they removed DRM, much to the tantruming of media companies.

I currently subscribe to Netflix, even though pirated movies and tv shows would be almost as easy to obtain by the terabyte if I were so inclined. Even if I were concerned about the legal consequences of downloading, there are services that will encrypt my torrent data and give me an ip address from Germany (Hidemyass, Bitguard, etc.).

And it's funny actually that the old-guard media companies are constantly fighting streaming services like Spotify and Netflix. The reason you don't find more internet streamed radio stations out of the U.S. is actually because of too high licensing fees.

I take your point about enforcement, but it's naive to think that media companies are pushing for tougher and tougher laws so they can create new and interesting services - it's so they don't have to do that. There are numerous examples of copyright being used to shutdown interesting services, so don't think it's only roses and sunshine.

Frankly, it's still too early to tell what all of the effects are in France - whether it's all benefit or if the harsher laws will have negative secondary effects; I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that maybe it's a little to early to sing the praises of greater government intervention just yet. I for one would prefer to see independent data and analysis out of France; the article you posted seems to just assume the law results in more sales without providing the basis for that assumption.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I'm not sure I would call it naive, but to just assert that the courts treat everyone equally... I almost find it kind of offensive. There are many people who have been disenfranchised by the courts. To claim that the courts do, not should, but do, treat everyone equally is to pretend that those people and their situations do not exist.

I find that very upsetting, from a perspective of both feminism and civil rights, and oh... several others, too. And I don't think it should be presented as an opinion -- it's a factual statement that is either true or false, and I would say that this particular statement is demonstrably false.

While its true that the big guys can better enforce their IP rights by hiring teams of lawyers to pursue pirates across state lines and to file one DMCA notice after another, I'm not sure how that helps your point. The poor shlub who can't afford all that high priced legal help just has to take his lumps, even to the extent of going out of business .
An example is the Art4LOve case, detailed HERE

This was a massive, clear- cut case of copyright infringement and plagiarism involving artwork posted online. Most of the artists will never recover , because:

It gets tricky because of a feature of US copyright law – while one’s work is ostensibly protected by copyright law from the moment it is fixed in a tangible form (Article 5.2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works sets that copyright protection will not be subject to any formality), in order to pursue an infringement claim in the US most effectively, one must have registered the work with the Copyright Office prior to infringement. Not only does this provide prima-facie evidence of authorship in certain circumstances (mostly to do with when the work was registered relative to publication date), but also enables the author-plaintiff to sue for statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The work must be registered prior to filing a federal suit in any case (a more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in this post from ArtBusiness.com).

It is more than likely that many, if not most, of the artists involved had not registered their works with the USCO – especially since many of them are probably not US residents. While this does not make it impossible to pursue the matter, it does make it a lot harder and more expensive (since lawyers will probably be reluctant to take the case without a large up-front payment). From my lofty European perch, I cannot help but wonder whether the automatic protection afforded under Berne isn’t mostly theoretical in the US (then again, this seems to be true of a lot of US copyright law, witness the DMCA).

In short, the reasons pirates get away with their @$$holerey is because a lawless, un-policed Internet makes it very costly to enforce IP rights . Fortunately, it looks like the rule of law is gradually coming to more and more of the Internet

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I've never heard of him.

I have never said that all authors feel the same way about piracy. To say that all authors feel thae same way about anything would be a very silly thing to say.

And yet...

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I find your assertion that "many authors are pro-piracy" ludicrous in the extreme. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[stonetools]

I take your point about enforcement, but it's naive to think that media companies are pushing for tougher and tougher laws so they can create new and interesting services - it's so they don't have to do that. There are numerous examples of copyright being used to shutdown interesting services, so don't think it's only roses and sunshine.

Frankly, I care MUCH less about media companies than I do about the artists that are being ripped off by pirates. I think of the media companies as profit-seeking entities who can be right bastards at times . But even a bastard has rights under the law .
You might want to look at the blog of the Cynical Musician -a musician and economist who blogs about piracy, the Internet and the music business. Here is a comment on the effects of piracy:

The still-resounding mantra about how best to compete with pirates has been for the legitimate suppliers to come up with new, innovative business models, but the flaw in this line of argument should be perfectly visible from what you have just read – it assumes that the legitimate suppliers can somehow come up with a business model that would give them an advantage over the pirates.

I’m sorry to say it, but that is bunk. The best that the legitimate suppliers can come up with is to match the pirates’ offer some of the time – for the reasons outlined above. The pirates will always have lower costs and will always be exempt from some of the restrictions that the legitimate suppliers have. On the other hand, any business model, product or service that the legal suppliers can come up with can be matched and bettered by the pirates, for exactly the same reasons.

Piracy skews the market for intellectual property because it isn’t subject to the same property rights as everyone else. This shouldn’t surprise anyone – you cannot have a properly functioning market without enforceable property rights. Imagine a market for cars where those who bought or produced cars tried to compete with those who stole them – the thieves would always win out.

LINK

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

And yet...

And yet what? The posts you have quoted are not contradictory.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

2. A lot more people are obeying the law at a comparatively modest cost in law enforcement.

I wouldn't call spending 11 million just to make an extra 3 million a modest cost, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that people are obeying the law rather than just switching to another protocol that Hadopi doesn't snoop on. I've noticed a big increase in French content on usenet, nowhere as big as it was in Dutch content in the late 90s, but it is still noticable.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Call me naive if you wish but yes, I do think so. The courts treat everybody equally.

It probably shows your social class more than anything. The underclass are always treated a lot more severely. Not so long ago people were getting jail sentences for stealing 50p bottles of water. Meanwhile, even the MPs who actually did got prosecuted for fiddling thousands on their expenses walked free. Those are both extremes, but social class and judge prejudice do play a part in what sort of justice you can expect to receive.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Not so long ago people were getting jail sentences for stealing 50p bottles of water.

... while engaged in a riot. It was the riot that was the cause of the jail sentences (as I think you are well aware, if you're honest about it ).

Meanwhile, even the MPs who actually did got prosecuted for fiddling thousands on their expenses walked free.

Not quite sure where you've got your information from, but every one of the MPs who were prosecuted for false accounting were imprisoned. From the Wiki article on the subject:

Criminal charges
See also: R v Chaytor

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales announced on 5 February 2010 that three Labour MPs, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield would face criminal charges of false accounting (s. 17, Theft Act 1968) in relation to their expense claims. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service had concluded that "there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned".[134][135] All four denied wrongdoing and said they would fight the charges. A joint statement from Morley, Chaytor and Devine said "we totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly", while Hanningfield said "all the claims I have ever made were made in good faith".[153][175]

David Chaytor

David Chaytor appealed along with Jim Devine and Elliot Morley to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that his actions were protected by parliamentary privilege. The Supreme Court ruled against them and he subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[176]

Eric Illsley

Eric Illsley pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting and was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to 12 months imprisonment.[177]

Elliot Morley

Elliot Morley admitted two charges of dishonesty and was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 20 May 2011 to 16 months imprisonment.[178]

Jim Devine

Jim Devine pleaded not guilty and was found guilty on two counts but cleared of a third (relating to £360) on 10 February 2011.[179] On 31 March 2011 he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment[180].

Lord Taylor of Warwick

Lord Taylor of Warwick pleaded not guilty to six charges of false accounting, but was convicted at Southwark Crown Court on 25 January 2011.[181] On 31 May 2011 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

Paul White, Baron Hanningfield

Lord Hanningfield pleaded not guilty to six charges of false accounting, but was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court on 26 May 2011.[182]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

You ask if this is fair to the readers who pay to read. Why wouldn't it be? As long as the author is up-front and honest about the situation, nothing is stopping the readers from making the choice -- as with the 40kbooks link above.

Because (forgive me for saying so), I don't think that you are being "up-front and honest about the situation".

When I look at your book on Amazon, which is where I buy almost all my books, nowhere at all in the description of the book do I find any statement that it can be obtained free of charge (your book is "Pulchritude" by Ana Mardoll, yes?). I read your profile on Amazon. Is there a statement THERE that I can get your book free? If there is, I must have overlooked it.

How am I to know that you offer your book free of charge?

[anamardoll]

I think you can find the relevant information in the online sample that Amazon offers.

However, you left something very important out of the post you quoted from me.

If you are interested in receiving a promotional copy of my book, feel free to PM or email me.

[HarryT]

I see. I wouldn't think to look there, since I never download book samples. Perhaps you could include the fact that it's distributed under a non-commercial CC licence in the Amazon description?

Even better, given that it is a CC licence, why not upload it to our library here at MR?

Thanks for the offer of a copy, but it's not really the kind of book that interests me. I wish you the best of luck with it, though.

[anamardoll]

I'm still in the process of figuring out how to upload it everywhere -- thank you for the suggestion of the MR library (I'll go read the faq now!) and the idea of updating my Amazon profile, which I've done. Woohoo, suggestions!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... while engaged in a riot. It was the riot that was the cause of the jail sentences (as I think you are well aware, if you're honest about it ).

Fair enough, but how do you explain the teacher (middle class occupation) getting bail when everyone from the underclass was remanded in custody for the same offence?

Then there is this the number of people prosecuted for fox hunting (62)versus the number of prosecutions for traditionally lower class bloodsports.