France passes La Hadopi AGAIN

[Nate the great]

zelda, would you like me to send you some rope (so you can string up the scoundrels)? I think it's time for another revolution.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-law-again.ars

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

zelda, would you like me to send you some rope (so you can string up the scoundrels)? I think it's time for another revolution.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-law-again.ars

What do you mean "France" ? certainly not ME lol...

[EowynCarter]

I think it's time for another revolution.

We see. Maybe the conseil constitutionnel will save our government and the music / movie industry from tier own stupidity once again.

[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?

E.g. violating the speed limit by 10 mph isn't a big deal, but get caught enough times and they'll suspend your license, yes?

[Shaggy]

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?

E.g. violating the speed limit by 10 mph isn't a big deal, but get caught enough times and they'll suspend your license, yes?

Because there's absolutely no due process or chance to defend yourself? You are assumed guilty merely by the accusation. This is a lot different than getting caught or pulled over for doing 10 mph over the speed limit by the cops. This is your neighbor accusing you of going 10 mph over, and then getting your license revoked.

If someone is violating copyright, they should be taken to court just like any other crime. What is so special about copyright violations that there should be special laws put into place in order to side step the whole trial process.

The reason the content industry is pushing so hard for these laws is that actually proving that someone violated copyright and providing evidence to back it up are way too difficult. It's much easier if you can strong arm governments into shutting people down without having to go through all of that "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If someone is violating copyright, they should be taken to court just like any other crime. What is so special about copyright violations that there should be special laws put into place in order to side step the whole trial process.

That there are so many criminals. (per the 'guilty until proven innocent' gut-feeling line of argument.) Nothing more to it.
Just convince Joe public (or Senator Joe) of that, and he'll eat right out of your lap. Especially when it comes to Sarko.

[Hellmark]

I dislike this law, for the fact that you're responsible for everything that gets downloaded via your connection. A few years back, had someone break the encryption on my router, since we had one of the only broadband connections at the time. (DSL wasn't an option till about a year ago, and cable still isn't available, leaving more expensive options like Satellite.) When it happened, WPA wasn't widespread yet, leaving my only option as WEP. I did have encryption enabled, passphrases were fairly complex, but as anyone who does security knows WEP isn't all that great. If you know what you're doing, with the right tools, you can crack it in a few hours. Long story short, one of the neighbors was wardriving and got in and was using my connection to grab all sorts of stuff. Next day I get a call from my ISP reporting high and unusual usage. I then had too go in and reduce number of available IPs to just the number of machines I normally had on, have a MAC address whitelist, etc.

Under La Hadopi, even though I had taken measures initially to secure it, I'd still be responsible for what happened after someone broke in. Not cool.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Because there's absolutely no due process or chance to defend yourself?

Re-read my post. I very clearly stated that I did not view the current incarnation as having sufficient legal review.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What is so special about copyright violations that there should be special laws put into place in order to side step the whole trial process.

What is so special about a speeding ticket that you can plead guilty by mail?

Also, copyright infringement isn't always treated as a criminal act; afaik civil proceedings are common, and do not involve the "innocent until proven guilty" standard.

The point is likely to be moot, though, for if HADOPI 2 does violate a French standard in this regard, the Constitutional Council will very likely reject it (as they did HADOPI 1).

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The reason the content industry is pushing so hard for these laws is that actually proving that someone violated copyright and providing evidence to back it up are way too difficult....

Yeah, well. Given the rampant infringement, I'm having a hard time seeing that as such a terrible thing, as long as the accused get the proper legal review.

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Under La Hadopi, even though I had taken measures initially to secure it, I'd still be responsible for what happened after someone broke in. Not cool.

Oh?

Let's say I run a small business. Someone in the office gets a dose of malware on one computer, and that machine starts sending out tons of spam. Guess what your ISP is likely to do? Give you a warning, and if you can't fix it, they will cut your connection until you've convinced them you have resolved the issue. Or, if you run a mail server and it gets compromised, you may well end up on a spam blacklist (not fun to clear up, by the way).

Or, let's say I am a fairly responsible gun owner. One day I happen to leave a loaded firearm out in the open, unattended, and a family visits me. The 5 year old happens to find the gun and fires it. To keep things happy, let's say the kid shoots a lamp and is unharmed. Or perhaps I keep it locked up, but got sloppy and didn't secure the cabinet properly. Seems pretty clear that you are on the hook for a fair amount of the responsibility of this event.

So if you get two warnings -- one by certified mail no less -- that you're sharing files and you aren't using P2P, then a) yes, you're responsible b) you don't want the government to send a tech to your house to fix it (well, maybe the French do ) and c) if someone has either leeched off your connection or compromised your machine to the point where HADOPI is targeting you, and you're clueless about how to deal with it, perhaps that's the least of your troubles....

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yeah, well. Given the rampant infringement

Have you seen this? I'm not saying that this 'proves' that it's all a lie, but I would remind you that news items often do not disclose affiliations between researchers and who paid for the research, etc.

"The British government's official figures on the level of illegal file sharing in the UK come from questionable research commissioned by the music industry. The Radio 4 show named More or Less examined the government's claim that 7m people in Britain are engaged in illegal file sharing. The 7m figure actually came from a report written about music industry losses for Forrester subsidiary Jupiter Research. The report was privately commissioned by none other than the UK's music trade body, the BPI. The 7m figure had been rounded up from an actual figure of 6.7m, gleaned from a 2008 survey of 1,176 net-connected households, 11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software — in other words, only 136 people. That 11.6% was adjusted upwards to 16.3% 'to reflect the assumption that fewer people admit to file sharing than actually do it.' The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on an estimated number of internet users that disagreed with the government's own estimate. The wholly unsubstantiated 7m figure was then released as an official statistic."

[EowynCarter]

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?

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

I don't download anything (well save for linux every now and then). I don't want to see my connexion cut because someone messed with my line or my ip.

What control do you have if someone add your ip to a torrent tracker (presisly to make a mess of hadopi's life ?).

All i want is to be left alone, i don't want to pay for other's stupidity !

And finally, it's unless, the people how spend their time downloading will just find other way, and won't get caught anyway.
The only one who will have trouble are the people you will see their ip spoofed, if their wi-fi connexion cracked (what will happen more often, any protection can be cracked with enough motivation, and your neighbor will have some more reason to crack you wi-fi.)

[Hellmark]

Two chances isn't really that much. Even if you do know how to lock things down, it is still possible to crack into wifi networks. As part of my CompSci studies, I've done pentesting, and it isn't that difficult to break in, mostly just a waiting game. If you're in a situation like me, where there are few broadband connections, and happen to live near someone who is knowledgable on these matters, you really can't expect to totally keep them out, so likely to get boned.

[FixB]

Don't worry : our ex-"Ministre de la Culture", who presented HADOPI in its first "release" told us that there was nothing to worry about, as wifi did not allow the transfert of huge files, as movies...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x97...t-le-wifi_news

je rappelle simplement que les ... que la la wifi ... que justement ce qu'il s'agissant de la wifi le débit offert par les accès wifi est très souvent insuffisant pour télécharger des fichiers sur une grande échelle ou même des fichiers volumineux comme les films. Je vous assure que c'est très difficile.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Re-read my post. I very clearly stated that I did not view the current incarnation as having sufficient legal review.

Yes, I know. But the (intentional) lack of review is a direct reflection of the "evilness" of the law.

Also, copyright infringement isn't always treated as a criminal act; afaik civil proceedings are common, and do not involve the "innocent until proven guilty" standard.

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.

Yeah, well. Given the rampant infringement, I'm having a hard time seeing that as such a terrible thing, as long as the accused get the proper legal review.

The entire reason for these type of laws is to side step the accused's right to legal review. That's the whole point. Copyright is already illegal, but you have to take them to court and prove that they did it. These laws are an attempt to do away with the need for proof.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by FixB

Don't worry : our ex-"Ministre de la Culture", who presented HADOPI in its first "release" told us that there was nothing to worry about, as wifi did not allow the transfert of huge files, as movies...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x97...t-le-wifi_news

Well, that's not totally wrong. When you're plugged on your neighbor wifi, connexion might not be as good good as with you own. Eventually to the point where making big download will be very long.

[FixB]

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