French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

so then how can you be so categorical on other subjects, such as filesharing ?

Because that's a much more straightforward issue. Do you really think that the two can be equated?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's a much more straightforward issue. Do you really think that the two can be equated?

The same way a mouse and an elephant can be equated. One is far larger in size and impact, but both are plant-eating, warm blooded, mammals..

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's a much more straightforward issue. Do you really think that the two can be equated?

i certainly do NOT think that filesharing and torture can be equated, obviously ; but the original context shows that i was in fact questioning your position that "the end justifies the means" which is also often used to justify torture, and the fact that you refuse to admit that the law we've been discussing might in fact be strongly deleterious to basic civil liberties to a degree which most people find unacceptable, PARTICULARLY when the pretext for it is something so arguably trivial as filesharing. i'll add that having read several articles on the subject lately including by Tim O'Reilly i'm discovering that the issue is significantly more nuanced than you seem to want to believe.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's a much more straightforward issue. Do you really think that the two can be equated?

There are 33k+ users on this forum, and about 33k+ different opinions on the subject of copyright/drm/enforcement. I don't think it is that straightforward.

-MJ

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's a much more straightforward issue. Do you really think that the two can be equated?

How many more studies do you need on the positive effects of filesharing? How many more examples of artists and creators who support filesharing will it take before you realise that there are far more positives to this movement than there are negatives? How many more readers have to be locked in and straightjacketed, their fair-use rights stolen from them in the name of profit, before you realise that DRM and lock in is a bad thing?

Torture is much more straightforward than file-sharing. You straddle the fence on that issue and yet jump the fence, with a metaphorical hammer in your hand, when it comes to file-sharing.

Of course you can't equate them. Torture is wrong. Filesharing is a grey area, with many indications of good and some indications of detriment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

How many more studies do you need on the positive effects of filesharing? How many more examples of artists and creators who support filesharing will it take before you realise that there are far more positives to this movement than there are negatives? How many more readers have to be locked in and straightjacketed, their fair-use rights stolen from them in the name of profit, before you realise that DRM and lock in is a bad thing?

You may feel that there are "more positives than negatives", but please allow me the freedom to disagree with you. I happen to believe that the right of artists to be recompensed for their work takes precidence over the right of users to "get stuff for free". You're welcome to disagree with me, but it would probably save us all a great deal of agro if we just agree to differ.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Of course you can't equate them. Torture is wrong. Filesharing is a grey area, with many indications of good and some indications of detriment.

Exactly, well said!

[TadW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may feel that there are "more positives than negatives", but please allow me the freedom to disagree with you.

Harry, everyone allows you the freedom to disagree. I guess there is something else about the way you describe your views that makes people always come back and argue with you. Have you not ever thought about this?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by TadW

Harry, everyone allows you the freedom to disagree. I guess there is something else about the way you describe your views that makes people always come back and argue with you. Have you not ever thought about this?

Very well said.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I happen to believe that the right of artists to be recompensed for their work takes precidence over the right of users to "get stuff for free".

I am in agreement with Harry on this basic fact... though I don't believe that these new French laws would accomplish this in any way. To adequately protect content, better methods are needed than writing laws that clearly stand against the basic civil liberties enjoyed by modern societies. But lack of protection clearly violates the civil liberties of creators, so something must be done.

The best outcome I can see from something like this, is that the heinous consequences of enforcing the law force all parties concerned into finally getting together and creating a system that truly works, is civilly responsible and fair to all parties.

For now... anyone know where we can get the online equivalents of a harbor, and cases of tea (or, given the regional culture, a guillotine)?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I am in agreement with Harry on this basic fact... though I don't believe that these new French laws would accomplish this in any way. To adequately protect content, better methods are needed than writing laws that clearly stand against the basic civil liberties enjoyed by modern societies. But lack of protection clearly violates the civil liberties of creators, so something must be done.

The best outcome I can see from something like this, is that the heinous consequences of enforcing the law force all parties concerned into finally getting together and creating a system that truly works, is civilly responsible and fair to all parties.

exactly : this law is the wrong way to address the question of compensating content creators, and violating civil liberties such as the basic right to privacy is unacceptable.

[Krystian Galaj]

If the law requiring users to install routers that block encrypted data passes in some country, I wonder how many people from that country will emigrate.

Will it all end with greatest privacy on the Net in China, of all the countries?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, ZSB, you ask such a lot of questions that I don't know where to begin to respond to you. Would you like to take it one point at a time, and then we can have a proper discussion about the points that you raise? I can't answer you properly when you ask 101 questions in a single post.

Thanks!

Very well. (excuse length, I like hearing myself type too much.)

Historical note.
Business models (like hand-crafted shoes) die out. Specifically, the guild system (which was very restrictive and disapproved of innovation rather a lot, and which oddly still exists in name in selected "artistry-related" industries) went the way of the dodo: even though there still are a few cobblers making shoes for the top end of the market, the tight control over competition and innovation disappeared because of mass production.
Similarly in publishing, I get the feeling there are certain content control restrictions in place (through the things the editors "like"). [The same is true in the classical music performance and the visual arts btw.]

The (recently beginning to decease) monopoly on printing, which existed before PoD and eInk came along, made sure content creators had to be accepted by certain people in order to get published; these publishers frequently seem like culture industrialists to me, rather than people ensuring cultural diversity and innovation. This model is now beginning to become irrelevant (something that started happening about a decade ago in the music business), as anyone who knows how to use LaTeX now has the technical tools to "set" type, and anyone who knows how to use autotune can record songs. Assuming typesetting is easier for reflowable books than for pbooks, the cost to make an ebook copy should be next to nothing if the pbook datafile already exists, so as soon as the book has been set once, it should (barring silly technical problems) work for all formats.

1. The current French legislation is an effort to ensure the current models remain, and to ensure the current publishers stay in relative positions of power; you can see when you look at ebook pricing that publishers are very, very hesitant to lower prices, even though distribution costs and printing costs go towards 0 (as soon as the infrastructure is in place to sell 1 ebook, you can also sell 400.000, as long as you have a fast enough connection and a decent pc or two), they claim they cannot lower prices because of "reasons". Now, while advertising costs still remain, "placement" costs at bookstores (whatever it used to take to ensure your book got shelfspace) should disappear, because webstores have infinite shelf space, and even advertising costs can go down, because of recommendation and "similar items" sites like shelfari, librarything, amazon, and the like. We already see something like this happening for music on Last.FM (duno if you're familiar with it), but word of mouth works. Which means the only things that remain are "editors" for content and spelling/grammar/style.
Now, if you'll allow me to speculate, I suspect that book sell better when they are priced lower. So why don't they lower prices if they're interested in maximizing revenues (and so royalties) for the authors, rather than keeping the prices high for no real reason?

2. A second, not directly related point, which might offend a few people: most book writing these days (just like most pop music) is uninspired enough for me not to call it "artistry" anymore, so I'm curious why is writing still so revered?
Sure, a happy few might still be writing something memorable that will still be interesting to read for the next generation, but when 90ish% of the market consists of porn novels and Dan Brown, I don't really see why they should be protected to the notable detriment of the rights of others.
They're (as a whole) doing little more than churning out a product that is pretty much fit only for single consumption, so what makes them important enough to warrant the fact that an entire private police force is set up that has the right to monitor my behavior in order to ensure I don't do something they disapprove of?
Again, this intermingling of governments and corporations, and corporate interests coming seems like something that might happen in fascist states, and something that is mostly in favor of those corporations, and not of the "writers" they employ.

3. Again, if they cared about the authors getting more royalties they should give them better contracts, or lower the prices on ebooks (DRMed for all I care): the fact that they won't tells me they don't care one iota about them.
So why do you approve of legislation that does little to nothing "for" the author, and everything for the companies employing them?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

If the law requiring users to install routers that block encrypted data passes in some country, I wonder how many people from that country will emigrate.

Will it all end with greatest privacy on the Net in China, of all the countries?

In most cases it is certainly far easier to find other means to get most of the content you want and give up the rest, circumventing locked-down routers, than to emigrate. Anyone who goes to the trouble of emigrating would be doing it for philosophical reasons, not practical ones. Still, adding this to the list of philosophical grievances could be enough for someone to make the final decision to leave.

If it happened to you tomorrow, would it be enough for you to leave your home?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

2. A second, not directly related point, which might offend a few people: most book writing these days (just like most pop music) is uninspired enough for me not to call it "artistry" anymore, so I'm curious why is writing still so revered?
Sure, a happy few might still be writing something memorable that will still be interesting to read for the next generation, but when 90ish% of the market consists of porn novels and Dan Brown, I don't really see why they should be protected to the notable detriment of the rights of others.

In fact, this has always been the case in literature: For every great author, there are hundreds or thousands of others, churning out material that will not last the year.

That's why it is not writing that is revered... it is great writing that is revered, and those who are capable of producing it are to be encouraged in every way possible, not stifled.

In addition, a planet of 7 billion people means a planet of 7 billion opinions. Suppose I think Tolstoy is a hack... that is my opinion. That does not mean I do not have a right to obtain the books I like, say, The Life and Times of Samurai Jack, because the majority of others think Tartakovsky is not as good as Tolstoy.

At any rate, the alternative is a much smaller source of all writing material, since most people in this world are simply too busy to write for nothing. Is that a world to look forward to?