French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Sure, but all the other guys and girls ride on their coattails, just because the form is the same. That said, I doubt they are "encouraged in every way possible." I rather suspect that, just as in the movie and music industries, they adapt to the form that seems to be selling best at the moment (such as historical fiction, for example), and that quite a few are even encouraged to do so by their muses.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Oh, come now. Even if there might be debate about whether certain fringe phenomena (pastiche etc.) should count as "art" rather than kitsch, you're surely not advocating '80s relativism, where everyone's opinion, no matter how unsubstantiated and unmotivated, was just as good as anyone else's?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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?

I could do without all the porn novels, the Browns, etc., just as well as I could do without singer X, who doesn't write her own music, but just sings the lyrics she's told to sing to "the best of her ability."
Anyway, there's no need for the false dichotomy between "survival of the fittest where we allow everyone to write through paying all of them" and "having a world where only the idle can write", as I never said copyright should be abolished; I just said that I don't really think today's publishers really deserve to keep existing in their current form.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

(pokes head in the door wearing as much armor as he could wear to ask an innocent question)

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable? ... But I'm trying to find out how much of people's pretty boisterous objections are simply because it's a law designed to protect intellectual property rights for which you personally may or may not have any respect for.

VR,

That's such a tough question for me! I agree with Harry that artists deserve to be paid for their work.

On the other hand, I think the industry has set up a false dichotomy between printed words and digital ones. It annoys the ever-livin' crap out of me that I become "an illegal file-sharer" if I share a copy of a digital book with my co-worker (for example). This same woman is one with whom I've swapped paperback books for years.

She's a one-time reader. I know that. She'll never read it again. And I can say I know she isn't technically savvy enough to pass it on. (I can't honestly say she'd remember to delete the file from her computer, though).

Until the laws stop assuming that any file-sharing is illegal file-sharing, I'm pretty much against them. [Edited to add: What I mean here is that any file-sharing is malicious/greedy in intent. Current laws may say that any file-sharing is illegal, but it's based on assumption that any file-sharing = mass distribution via p2p or something.]

I would also say that I believe there is a benefit to artists for limited file-sharing. Speaking of the same friend, she has introduced me to many authors I would never have purchased before - because she thrust a copy of the book into my grubby paws and said "You have to read this book!" Some - no - I didn't like enough to buy any more from that author. But I likely never would have. And some - wow! - they've become "auto-buys" when they show up at Fictionwise.

I know that's anecdotal evidence. And I know there are those who would never purchase when they can have free. But until there's some kind of "middle ground" on this, I just don't feel I can carte blanche support these laws.

(And having said all that, I'm never going to be able to argue with my brother against the legalization of marijuana with the same furvor ever again).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Oh, come now. Even if there might be debate about whether certain fringe phenomena (pastiche etc.) should count as "art" rather than kitsch, you're surely not advocating '80s relativism, where everyone's opinion, no matter how unsubstantiated and unmotivated, was just as good as anyone else's?

It makes as much sense as deciding that the majority's opinion, no matter how unsubstantiated and unmotivated, is superior to mine simply by being the majority. Art is not the same for everyone... art is what moves YOU. The majority has no business deciding that for individuals.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I could do without all the porn novels, the Browns, etc., just as well as I could do without singer X, who doesn't write her own music, but just sings the lyrics she's told to sing to "the best of her ability."

Fortunately, you are free to not buy them if you don't want to. But someone else who appreciates them should have the right to buy them if they do want to. Or are we to decide, for individuals and artists, which of them deserve to get paid, and which ones must be forced to give their work away for free? Based on what criteria? Majority decision?

The moment art is dictated by the majority, is the moment you lose art.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

I got into this discussion late, but I have to insert a point here. I agree strongly that the right of the artist to be compensated for their work does indeed take precedence over someone's right to get something for free. But there are many, many instances in filesharing activities where this just does not apply.

A. The artist is dead with no surviving family. (sorry, you can't take it with you).
B. The artist is dead, + the work is not available through legitimate means.
C. The artist is alive + the work is not available in an acceptable format + compensation is sent directly to the artist and/or their representative.

I'm sure there are others that y'all can come up with.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Fortunately, you are free to not buy them if you don't want to.

Yes, but that wasn't my point. My point was that "creative writing" is deemed different (and special) by the law because of one in a million writers who produce something that lasts. However, those other 999.999 other writers leech on to that category, and through the arguments of the publishing industry we are now all forced to "lose quite a bit of liberty" (internet access should be about as important as access to your local council these days, looking at the amount of stuff you can do online to contact the authorities/your government) because their income might be affected.
To me it's not even this current french law so much (as it doesn't affect me), but wondering what they'll come with in 3 years using this as precedent, stating that "it doesn't work, so we want more".

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Or are we to decide, for individuals and artists, which of them deserve to get paid, and which ones must be forced to give their work away for free? Based on what criteria? Majority decision?

Isn't it already the case some of those writers get lump sum payments for every title written?

[Godzil]

I'm really, really disappointed by the methods our "wonderful" french government use for voting such a law: only 16 deputies where present for such a thing!

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

EDIT: To all the French readers on Mobileread, our brothers and sisters across the channel. Fight back! Don't let one of the freest and greatest nations on the Earth be sullied by Sarkozy and his thugs. We're here for you, in Britain, in Sweden and Germany, Spain and all over Europe, in the rest of the world. United we stand, divided we fall. Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite.

Thanks a lot; feels good, it does.

[Format C:]

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.

If you think "enlightened" to strike an innocent on the base of an unspecified suspect, I don't want to live in a country where you can vote.

You're not punishing "criminals". You're punishing innocents.
And, in my opinion, that's not the right way to address the problem (if any).

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please define what you mean by "a right to privacy". If you mean "the right to break the law with impunity" then I'm afraid that I really don't think that you (or I, or anyone else) has such a "right".

My understanding of this law (and please do correct me if I am wrong) is that a person suspected of illegal activities will be sent a letter warning them that they are under suspicion, and pointing out that it is their responsibility to "secure" their internet connection. A second occurence within 6 months will result in a second letter. Finally, a third occurence within a year will result in the potential of internet access being suspended for a period of between a month and a year.

Have I stated the terms of it correctly?

In those countries called "democracies", when a person is "suspected", is investigated by the Police (not by greedy companies), is put under trial (you know that funny place called "Court of Justice" where who's accused can defend himself?), and if he's not proven guilty he's sent home as innocent.
People are criminals after they're proven guilty.

Whatever you want to do to criminals, even death penalty, you can't do to innocent.

That's the point.
And that's where every citizen of the world interested in the preservation of Democracy have to fight.
And right now democracy is under siege almost everywhere.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things

OK, that Mein Kampf quotation you wrote says it all.

[Format C:]

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.

Yes, and it's like to have your driving license suspended because someone saw a car the same colour than yours to skip a red light...



I'd like to know your reaction in that situation....

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would torturing one person to prevent the deaths of 10,000 innocent people be morally justifyable?

No.
It's not.
And it'll never will be.

The same moment you think about torture, you're a terrorist yourself, and you're no longer in the position to morally justify nothing at all.

But that's definitely off topic.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...No, of course not, but the important point is that it's there for the situations in which it needs to be used ....

Like this one:
Imagine a country where the Chief of Government is a media tycoon who controls almost 90% of the advertising market.
Imagine that he wants to concentrate in his hands Legislative, Executive and Judiciary Powers with a Constitution review.
Imagine that newscasters, newspapers and "opinion leaders" fear him, and don't want to disappoint him.
Imagine that a couple of free-minded journalists warn the people in their blogs.

Now imagine that someone "suspect" them of illegal file sharing...........

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is the point of a court - to determine whether or not the person is guilty. If there is evidence to suggest that someone may reasonably be supposed to be guilty - eg a copyright holder has personally downloaded a file from the IP address of that person - then that seems like a reasonable circumstance for instituting legal action. They may indeed be innocent - that is for the court to decide.

And why do you want to cut off his Internet connection if he's innocent?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable?

Yes, it is, as long Police powers belong to the State.



I'd never vote for it, but it's not a law against democracy itself.
And it can be democratically erased and substituted with a better one.