Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[hidari]

Keep it up...enjoying this thread.... Pass the popcorn please...!!!!

[Ninjalawyer]

Also, to those saying that a system of copyright enforcement similar to the system in France uses can't/won't be misused should take a closer look at the current U.S. situation.

ICE in the U.S. has already been seizing website domains without any sort of trial, and (in some cases) preventing the individuals involved from even finding out what the issue is via sealed court proceedings. In the case of the Dajaz1.com blog, the U.S. seized the domain, held it for a year in secret and then returned it while pretending nothing happened. There's a bit of the story here and here.

Once your site is seized in the U.S., there's an incredibly convoluted process for getting it back. In the case of Dajaz1, the site owner's lawyer was never able to get any details about the case because the Federal government asked the court to seal the proceedings, proceedings that took place with no notice to Dajaz1 or its lawyers.

This highlights the problem of allowing enforcement prior to an adversarial process.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by hidari

Keep it up...enjoying this thread.... Pass the popcorn please...!!!!

Sharing popcorn is destroying the popcorn industry. Buy your own.

[Arbait]

Let's see things in another angle, a Marxist angle LOL
To pirate a CD or movie is, in terms of work done, a easy job.
But to pirate a book? C'mon, scanning + correction + expenses (the price of the paper book + the time used to make a ebook start from deadthree) is a hard job. Who does this work do so only out of passion.

[azazel1024]

Did you specifically ask the originator of the popcorn before you grabbed a handful while the bag was being passed? They might not have intended for YOU to actually have had any, only the others around you.

On topic again, the issue is one of severity and actual damages.

I don't dispute that copyright "theft" should be illegal and have SOME kind of punishment. However, when it comes down to it, a lot of enforcement out of necessity should be the province of the copyright holder. I think the government needs a role as well, but it shouldn't be the role of monitoring. In general police don't actively monitor your store or your house or your car to make sure nothing gets stolen. It is your job as the property owner to monitor your own property and alert the government (police) if you suspect a theft or break-in. THEN it is the job of the police to investigate based on the severity and scope of the crime.

In the case of a technological copyright theft, it isn't simply a case of a right's holder telling the government, "Some people have stolen my IP, go stop them!" I think it requires and honest to goodness, "Here are the particulars as far as I know them, can you please investigate further".

These days copyright theft over the internet is a lot like blood typing to identify a criminal. You might be able to narrow "who dunnit" down to a specific IP address. Supposing the IP address wasn't spoofed then you can track it down to an internet account holder. That doesn't mean that internet account holder actually did it, only that it came over their connection.

If someone used my car to rob a bank that doesn't mean I should be held liable. Sure, I should be at least looked at with a bit of scrutiny. After all, I would hopefully have some idea who used my car. However, if my car was stolen, I am probably not going to have any idea. If it wasn't stolen, hopefully I have a darned good idea who did it. But, if I gave 10 friends and all of my family members the keys to my car and I rarely look in my garage or my driveway to see if my car is there, I am probably going to have no idea who used it. If we add in that I generally leave the garage door open, the car unlocked and sometimes leave the keys in the ignition as well...

Well.

That is pretty much the parable that most closely matches investigating copyright theft from, "an individual downloader" stand point. Now one who is actively disseminating copyrighted works is a bit easier to track down and considering the much greater scope of damages I think it behooves society to attempt to investigate a bit more closely and possibly a bit more surrendering of freedom with such an investigation (such as possibly having to turn over computer equipment for forensic investigation if there is a surfit of evidence against the person and so forth).

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

I don't dispute that copyright "theft" should be illegal and have SOME kind of punishment. However, when it comes down to it, a lot of enforcement out of necessity should be the province of the copyright holder. I think the government needs a role as well, but it shouldn't be the role of monitoring. In general police don't actively monitor your store or your house or your car to make sure nothing gets stolen. It is your job as the property owner to monitor your own property and alert the government (police) if you suspect a theft or break-in. THEN it is the job of the police to investigate based on the severity and scope of the crime.

SO much agreement with this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sbroome

As Colleen Doran said regarding this era of online ad revenue..

LINK

Millions of hits? She can count the hits she's not getting? What's the algorithm for that? With a little more number-crunching, she should be able to count the exact number of advertising dollars she's missing, and have a nice solid case to take against any of the sites that are hosting her work without permission.

Saying, "I am missing out on millions of hits" is even more nebulous than "I am missing out on thousands of sales."

I'm sure that, with a bit of nudging, anonymous could be convinced to bestow millions of hits on the website of any author who feels cheated by digital piracy. Except advertisers aren't much paying for site hits anymore... so what she wants is millions of thoughtful, selective hits, the kind that might click on ads.

That a lot of us don't even see, because while I don't mind well-chosen themed ads that fit with whatever I'm reading about, I can't stand animated ads for topics that some marketing whiz decided to connect to the keywords they grab from the page. (I read a lot of Pagan blogs and email lists. Guess what kinds of ads show up on "religious" websites? Guess how likely I am to buy their products.) So I block ads, even the ones I wouldn't mind seeing, because there's no way to identify "ads chosen by the site owner with this particular content in mind" vs "ads placed by a third-party marketer based on keywords that have nothing to do with why I'm reading this."

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Millions of hits? She can count the hits she's not getting? What's the algorithm for that? With a little more number-crunching, she should be able to count the exact number of advertising dollars she's missing, and have a nice solid case to take against any of the sites that are hosting her work without permission.

Saying, "I am missing out on millions of hits" is even more nebulous than "I am missing out on thousands of sales."

I'm sure that, with a bit of nudging, anonymous could be convinced to bestow millions of hits on the website of any author who feels cheated by digital piracy. Except advertisers aren't much paying for site hits anymore... so what she wants is millions of thoughtful, selective hits, the kind that might click on ads.

That a lot of us don't even see, because while I don't mind well-chosen themed ads that fit with whatever I'm reading about, I can't stand animated ads for topics that some marketing whiz decided to connect to the keywords they grab from the page. (I read a lot of Pagan blogs and email lists. Guess what kinds of ads show up on "religious" websites? Guess how likely I am to buy their products.) So I block ads, even the ones I wouldn't mind seeing, because there's no way to identify "ads chosen by the site owner with this particular content in mind" vs "ads placed by a third-party marketer based on keywords that have nothing to do with why I'm reading this."

Just to get you to be more concise with your position, in an article in which a creator (who writes and draws her own stories),has said specifically that people who have nothing to do with her actual creative process do not deserve to distribute her work without her permission and take away page hits and ad revenue from her, what is your contention?

In an article in which she says that people who take copyrighted content and distribute it are acting as de facto publishers, what is your contention?

This is not a huge media corporate giant, this is an individual who has worked her ASS off to create and sell something, telling people to stop misappropriating it. What possible problem could you have with what she's saying?

I find it phenomenal that all you can take from the article is that she can't expect to get millions of missing hits. And i don't care what you would imagine Anonymous might do on behalf of piracy victims.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

On what basis do you make that claim? The example given in the article was of someone who cleared up a misunderstanding after receiving a third warning, and before going to court.

It wasn't a third warning, it was a third accusation:

Mr. Thollot was accused of illegally downloading songs by David Guetta and Rihanna, as well as the film “Iron Man 2.”

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Incorrect, a hearing with a judge is required before fines or sanctions can be levied.

I wasn't talking about the fines, but about your comment:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or, if they can demonstrate that it's not their fault, they are not punished.

According to your interpretation the accused needs to prove their innocence, and this is a case of guilty until proven innocent. Which is what I said.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

According to your interpretation the accused needs to prove their innocence, and this is a case of guilty until proven innocent. Which is what I said.

But that's hardly unique. If you're caught by a speed camera, then you, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, will be prosecuted unless you can prove that someone else was driving the car at the time.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's hardly unique. If you're caught by a speed camera, then you, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, will be prosecuted unless you can prove that someone else was driving the car at the time.

Just need to forge the Chief Constable's home car's plates......

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

As Colleen Doran said regarding this era of online ad revenue..

I'm not sure if she's just stupid or deliberately misleading. When I see a comic that I've never seen before I google it. She wouldn't see links from them.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's hardly unique. If you're caught by a speed camera, then you, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, will be prosecuted unless you can prove that someone else was driving the car at the time.

I think that you meant to say that if your car is caught by a speed camera, then...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I think that you meant to say that if your car is caught by a speed camera, then...

Semantics aside, there's a well-established principle - in English law at least - that you can indeed be held responsible for the usage of something that you are the owner or keeper of. If your dog bites someone, then YOU will be prosecuted. If your car goes through a red light, or is caught by a speed camera, then you will be prosecuted for the offence (unless you can prove that someone else was driving). It seems a natural extension of that principle that if your internet connection is used to download illegally, then you are responsible for the copyright infringement unless you can demonstrate that it was someone else who did it.

[Ninjalawyer]

Three strike systems go way beyond speed cameras; with a speed camera, you're [usually] facing a monetary penalty - there's no potential for jail time or even demerits. With three strike systems, you're potentially getting kicked off the internet which is how a lot of people:

(i) make a living;
(ii) do their daily financial transactions;
(iii) interact with people outside of their area; and
(iii) access basic information about government services.

Forcing someone to prove a negative (that they didn't infringe) is bad enough, but it's worse when the consequence is taking away fundamental services. The process shouldn't be so easy for copyright holders given the consequences. Just to head off the usual strawmen arguments, no, I'm not saying people have a "right" to internet use.

We can also get into the issue of accusing people based on infringement coming from their IP address and the usefulness of that, but I don't think that's necessary for the purposes of this conversation.

Edit

I would also just note that not all States in the U.S. issue fines based on the car rather than the driver; some States photograph the drivers face and identify the violator that way.

This doesn't impact your point, but it's interesting.