French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

the right not to have private corporations with no authority or competence for this sort of activity spying on my internet connection, to begin with. the way you talk i suppose you'd be in favor of random wiretapping as well.

Perfectly happy, yes. Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things. Indeed, I am not so naive as to believe that telephone calls, e-mails, etc, are not routinely monitered by the security services. That is the entire purpose of the UK government's "GCHQ" (Government Communications HQ) at Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, England.

I'm afraid that I don't, and never will, accept, that your right to "privacy" permits you to break the law with impunity, which is what you appear to be saying that you have a "right" to do.

Clearly the majority of French MP's do not believe that this law is "indefensible", or it could not have got through parliament?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perfectly happy, yes. Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things. Indeed, I am not so naive as to believe that telephone calls, e-mails, etc, are not routinely monitered by the security services. That is the entire purpose of the UK government's "GCHQ" (Government Communications HQ) at Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, England.

because it happens doesn't make it right. as for "Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things," that is a stunningly naïve point of view in regard to the massive potential for false accusations of this law as it will be implemented.

I'm afraid that I don't, and never will, accept, that your right to "privacy" permits you to break the law with impunity, which is what you appear to be saying.

really ? where did i say that ?

Clearly the majority of French MP's do not believe that this law is "indefensible", or it could not have got through parliament?

this law was voted on at 11 o'clock at night by only SIXTEEN deputies out of 577, which is scandalous in itself, and it was the object of a simple vote of raised hands instead of being the object of a "vote solennel" as it should have been, which is a nominative vote allowing each député to specify his position in regard to the proposed law. many députés wanted to abstain from the vote as a protest. you can hardly say it was supported by any credible majority under these conditions.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

another article in french on the site of the newspaper Libération :
http://www.ecrans.fr/Hadopi-adoptee,6848.html

interesting to note that the French government voted this law against the advice of the European parliament, who rejected this sort of measure. also interesting to note the french ISPs are also against it.

the opposition has promised to appeal the law but nonetheless this is a bleak situation for our civil rights, which sarko seems determined to erode as much as possible while he can...

When's the little twit up for recall? I had a countdown calendar for over three years to the date of eviction of le shrub.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

When's the little twit up for recall? I had a countdown calendar for over three years to the date of eviction of le shrub.

next presidential election is in 2012 ; god knows what state the country will be in by then, he's already done so much damage...

i think i need a countdown calendar myself.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perfectly happy, yes. Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things. Indeed, I am not so naive as to believe that telephone calls, e-mails, etc, are not routinely monitered by the security services. That is the entire purpose of the UK government's "GCHQ" (Government Communications HQ) at Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, England.

I'm afraid that I don't, and never will, accept, that your right to "privacy" permits you to break the law with impunity, which is what you appear to be saying that you have a "right" to do.

Clearly the majority of French MP's do not believe that this law is "indefensible", or it could not have got through parliament?

Innocent? By what standard? With a government form that can make anything illegal with a mere vote? And allows ex-post-facto laws? Sorry, won't be visiting the UK, ever...

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Innocent? By what standard? With a government form that can make anything illegal with a mere vote? And allows ex-post-facto laws? Sorry, won't be visiting the UK, ever...

Please don't judge the entire country by one person

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perfectly happy, yes. Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things.

Of course - because miscarriages of justice never occur, and even if they did the system is so good it would be resolved beore it could have any adverse affect on the parties involved.

Indeed, I am not so naive as to believe that telephone calls, e-mails, etc, are not routinely monitered by the security services. That is the entire purpose of the UK government's "GCHQ" (Government Communications HQ) at Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, England.

And the world-wide (well, UK, US, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand) Echelon is alleged to do the same thing.

Just because something's already happening legally doesn't mean it is ethically right; nor that it is not open to misuse be it deliberate or accidental.

I'm afraid that I don't, and never will, accept, that your right to "privacy" permits you to break the law with impunity, which is what you appear to be saying that you have a "right" to do.

I think people are against the invasion of privacy as a principle, especially by corporations whose main interest is making money, rather than saying they should be allowed to break the law with impunity.

Clearly the majority of French MP's do not believe that this law is "indefensible", or it could not have got through parliament?

I don't know the details on this law, but I do know our own govt has pulled some "fast ones" to get laws in despite opposition...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

because it happens doesn't make it right. as for "Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things," that is a stunningly naïve point of view in regard to the massive potential for false accusations of this law as it will be implemented.

Permit me to ask you, then: if you do not accept logging of an IP address as prima facie evidence of illegal activities, what evidence would you accept?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Permit me to ask you, then: if you do not accept logging of an IP address as prima facie evidence of illegal activities, what evidence would you accept?

given in this particular context the difficulty of distinguishing illegal activities from legal ones (what about people using bittorrent for completely legal ends such as downloading linux distros ? what about me, a webdesigner, using a lot of bandwidth to upload image-heavy maquettes for my clients / to the printer ? what about the many many independent artists (musicians and writers, to start with) relying on promotional sharing of their work to gain visibility ? how are they going to tell the difference between those packets and some illegal harry potter ebooks ??), i'm not sure i'd accept *any* evidence, but more importantly i think this is going about the problem completely backwards, as do the majority of people including the european parliament, the isps, the opposition party of the government, most countries, the general public...

rather than persecuting individuals who may OR MAY NOT be engaging in illicit filesharing, assuming guilt rather than innocence on shaky evidence at best, and spending countless millions to set up a technically flawed and thoroughly unproductive system, the governement should be looking at better ways of getting money to the content creators and encourage new business models and new creation.

it's important to remember that the law in question is actually called "Projet de loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet" or "Proposed law to favorise the diffusion and protection of creation on the internet". i don't see any means in the current proposed implementation either to encourage *or* protect creation, only a lot of pointless (because it doesn't address any of the underlying causes) and expensive prosecution and harassment of individuals who may or may not have done anything wrong at all.

[pshrynk]

I'd say finding an illegal file on someone's computer, found the old fashioned way, by getting a warrant would be sufficient evidence for me.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Well, to go against the prevailing opinion, personally I think that this is excellent news. So called file "sharers" need to be given a strong signal that their crimes are not "acceptable" and this is a very good way to do it.

Vive la France! Let us hope that other EU countries soon join the French in their enlightened law making.

I'm glad to hear you think it's excellent news. Here's why I don't agree with you. The problem with the law as it has been enacted in France, and as they are considering enacting it in other countries as well, is that a mere allegation, by anyone, results in the immediate disconnection of your access.

All that someone has to do is say that you might be breaking the law. They don't have to prove anything, and *poof* you are disconnected. Can you appeal?? I suppose so, but you are essentially being asked to prove a negative, and meanwhile, you have no internet access ... and for some people, that might also mean no phone access, and no access to their business.

You say you've got a 12 year old in the household that doesn't understand the law and downloaded something he ought not have? Tough. The internet connection is no more.

Someone has a grudge against your family and makes an unsupported allegation? Tough, you try proving you didn't do it. And .... you just do without your internet connection while your online business goes down the tubes and you pay attorney's fees to prove you are innocent.

Innocent people have everything to worry about with this law. If an "allegation" .... and I hope you understand what an allegation is, Harry, which means no hearing, just the allegation, gets you disconnected, then you are basically SOL. No hearing means nothing to appeal. No hearing means you don't even get a chance to protest your innocence.

Allegation=Disconnection. That's the law as it is written. Are you sure you want to be happy that law might become the norm??

[deltop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Permit me to ask you, then: if you do not accept logging of an IP address as prima facie evidence of illegal activities, what evidence would you accept?

If someone is suspected of an illegal act, then surely it should be the job of the police to investigate after it's been referred to them. Then if they find reasonable grounds to do so they can obtain a search warrant and seize the suspects equipment.

Do you really want private companies (who main goal is to maintain their profit margins) to be investigating and deciding amongst themselves if someone deserves to have their internet connection terminated?

Ip addresses can and indeed already are faked by various trackers out there already.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I'm glad to hear you think it's excellent news. Here's why I don't agree with you. The problem with the law as it has been enacted in France, and as they are considering enacting it in other countries as well, is that a mere allegation, by anyone, results in the immediate disconnection of your access.

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.

[Greg Anos]

If I may be allowed to insert a reply to the above question, I would recommend the US standard of evidence.

You have to provide a judge with information providing a "probable cause" of a crime. Then a warrant can be issued for a search. Mere activity cannot be construed as probable cause, as you cannot determine what the activity comprised of.

Relevant example. I download a torrent of a movie. My IP address shows a large block of activity. Is it probable cause? No, as I could have downloaded, say, My Man Godfrey (1936), which is Public Domain in the US, or a friend's attempt at making a movie. or I may have used the torrent to download from a legitimate, for pay, site (think HULU, or maybe I want to watch the local news daily from my old hometown, via Slingbox). All legitimate, all high bandwidth. So activity alone is not adequate. Now if you want to track both IP addresses, prove that the only data the sending site is infringed information, or sucessfully seize the sending IP sites connection records, showing that illegal information was transmitted to my IP address, THEN you have "probable cause" for your warrent. Not until then. That's why the RIAA/MPAA haven't actually won a case past appeal.

High standard? Absolutely. Does this allow crime to exist? Absolutely. But that's the price you pay for a free society. The other choice is the knock in the dark and the disapperance. Which is precisely what we are talking about for internet access in the new French Law.

[zelda_pinwheel]

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.

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.

and ricky is right ; it's based on ALLEGATIONS and not PROOF.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If I may be allowed to insert a reply to the above question, I would recommend the US standard of evidence.

You have to provide a judge with information providing a "probable cause" of a crime. Then a warrant can be issued for a search. Mere activity cannot be construed as probable cause, as you cannot determine what the activity comprised of.

Relevant example. I download a torrent of a movie. My IP address shows a large block of activity. Is it probable cause? No, as I could have downloaded, say, My Man Godfrey (1936), which is Public Domain in the US, or a friend's attempt at making a movie. or I may have used the torrent to download from a legitimate, for pay, site (think HULU, or maybe I want to watch the local news daily from my old hometown, via Slingbox). All legitimate, all high bandwidth. So activity alone is not adequate. Now if you want to track both IP addresses, prove that the only data the sending site is infringed information, or sucessfully seize the sending IP sites connection records, showing that illegal information was transmitted to my IP address, THEN you have "probable cause" for your warrent. Not until then. That's why the RIAA/MPAA haven't actually won a case past appeal.

High standard? Absolutely. Does this allow crime to exist? Absolutely. But that's the price you pay for a free society. The other choice is the knock in the dark and the disapperance. Which is precisely what we are talking about for internet access in the new French Law.

right. that method, while imperfect, seems a lot more reasonable than the proposed hadopi method.