TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

French Opposition to Challenge 3 Strikes in Court

After its initial adoption in May and subsequent striking down by France’s highest legal authority, the Hadopi “3 strikes” law was accepted in July by the Senate, and last week it was passed in the National Assembly. The legislation was finally approved in parliament yesterday, but the opposition immediately announced a fresh court challenge.

Following its initial adoption in May, the original version of the controversial Hadopi (High Authority for the Dissemination of Creative Works and Protection of Rights on the Internet) anti-piracy legislation was nuked by the Constitutional Council, France’s highest legal authority.

On July 8th, a modified version of the bill was accepted by the Senate following reassurances that any final decision to disconnect an Internet user under a 3 strikes regime would be handled by a judge.

Last week French legislators voted on this compromise bill. In the National Assembly it passed with 285 votes in favor and 225 votes against. This acceptance signaled the bill would move to the Senate for approval.

The bill, which has received strong support from President Nicolas Sarkozy and musican first lady Carla Bruni, was passed yesterday in the joint legislative committee of the two houses by 258 votes in favor to 131 against.

Under the law, once an individual has been warned about a third online copyright infringement, he or she will enter a mechanism which will see them reported to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, and issue a range of other penalties including fines.

Reporters Without Borders referred to the legislation critically, saying it was “..alarmed that the alleged offender will not be given details of the illegal download when the disconnection order is issued. This recalls the censorship methods in force prior to the 1881 press freedom law, when the censor did not have to tell offenders why they were being censored.”

The bill now requires Nicolas Sarkozy’s signature to become law, but even this will face dissent.

The opposition Socialists, who were responsible for taking the earlier version of the law to the constitutional council, immediately announced that they will mount another challenge.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Anonymous

    poor french

  • xentar

    Well. Another TPB-like epic…

  • cosy

    french ppl get your ass on freenet

  • KingKong

    Maybe it’s time the french had another revolution.
    If only everyone in France downloaded 3 copyright files and then lets see how the system copes.

    Oh wait 43.2 percent of French people do…

  • togenshi

    I can see a spur in wireless hacking in france.

  • nixar

    The Constitutional Council is not a court. It’s more a part of the legislative branch. If it gets involved, a bill does not have force of law until it reaches its decision (30 days at most), which is final.

  • Phoenix

    french idiots deserve that ^^
    choose an dumb ass president like sarkozi and you live in hell

  • lverona

    “..alarmed that the alleged offender will not be given details of the illegal download when the disconnection order is issued.”

    The problem with the opposing forces is that they are for some weird reason concentrating on side issues instead of tackling the main question: that copying files should be 100% legal (and that the industry tries a different business model). This is THE main issue. But everyone, including TPB, are trying to make irrelevant points and focus on arguments which clearly do not stand a chance of serious criticism.

    In the Pirate Bay example instead of outright speaking that restricting file copying is absurd, they instead focused on the fact that they do not host copyrighted content and that in Sweden it is legal or whatever. I did not read anywhere that they said restricting copying is unreasonable in the first place or that copyright law in its present form is unreasonable and that a copyright in the age of digital technology is an absurd unenforceable idea in the first place.

    Until that happens, until those pirate parties focus on that, we will have those half-oppositions which will not stand a chance in court.

  • lverona

    Another interesting thing to note is that the whole situation is turned upside down.

    Musicians behave as if the Internet was created for them, to work under their rules.

    In reality, the situation is essentially different – the Internet is an independent phenomena with its own laws and the musician (or the publisher) are just humble tourists. Instead of trying to set their own rules, they should see if rules of the Internet allow them to make any money, if using Internet as a platform would allow them to build a business model.

    In fact, treating Internet as a social institution is wrong, since it is not that. Internet is an environment which is based on physical laws – on being able to do this and that. You cannot simply proclaim something illegal or set rules which are not based on reality.

    Trying to restrict copying or whatever are solutions which are not based on reality, since Internet and computer environment in fact allows copying files. That’s a fact – files are copied easily and with no effort or resources. This is not going to change, this is what we have. Trying to restrict it is pointless and no matter how many laws will pass – eventually they will all fail, since saying you cannot copy certain information is the same as asking everyone not to say certain words. Try passing a law that say you cannot use words: “elephant”, “car” and “the”. It is the same idea – unenforceable, uncontrollable, useless and out of proportions.

    The industry has to understand that it is them that have to adapt to what Internet is, not the other way around.

  • Pingback: Partido Pirata Mexicano (ppiratamx) 's status on Wednesday, 23-Sep-09 10:52:35 UTC - Identi.ca

  • Anonymous

    Come on you French socialists!

  • Big Jump Down

    “The industry has to understand that it is them that have to adapt to what Internet is, not the other way around.”

    Bingo.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Well said, Iverona. But perhaps the reason the defendants are focusing on “side” issues is because the laws are drafted and passed and the laws are not on trial, the defendants are. You are calling for a discussion and referendum on the law itself, a function of the legislature but not the court system.

    As for adapting to the nature of the internet, we might expect a long uphill battle. You may yet be correct that the very nature of the network cannot be stopped, but to embrace that principle thousands of years of established thought and practice on the basis of fair trade, that is giving value to get value in return, has to be scrapped because the act of copying in private requires no value given for the value taken.

    Any thoughtful look forward would acknowledge the potential of the internet as the next and perhaps greatest marketplace and distribution system ever. But only if people remain fair and use this new paradigm along establishes real-life lines. This is not as unrealistic as you suggest, for much of potential wrongdoing in life is avoided through common morality and sheer personal discipline.

    It remains to be seen if morality remains as influential as it has been for the last thousand years and if online theft, fraud, hacking and infringement becomes subject to discipline. If not, the wanton ransacking of everything in digital format we’ve seen this past decade will become the new norm, and entirely new means of compensation will have to be mandated and enforced by government. One thing is clear through all of human history: pirates in every realm steal, do not care, and dare anyone to stop them.

  • Reasoned Mind

    And one more thought:
    “You cannot simply proclaim something illegal or set rules which are not based on reality.”

    This is historically untrue, and you mislead buy suggesting it. The reality is that people would drive insanely faster were there no rules to curtail it, same with paying taxes. The reality is no one would pay anything unless clear law and strict enforcement is in place. That list goes on and on. Our selfish individual impulses are often in conflict with necessary and more uniform behavior for the betterment of the whole, the very concept of Socialism.

    We should expect that anyone with a vested interest in the common notions of “give to get” to fight very long and very hard before simply losing everything to the internet and walking away from decades or even centuries of investment. Especially if the laws, the governments and still the majority of the people remain on their side.

  • your name here

    And there we have retarded mind again with the ‘stealing’…

  • it’s political

    The music industry needs to grow up, and do it quickly. All this hyperbole is doing nobody any good, and making music company execs look like spoilt, undereducated dicks. A few musicians jumping on the bandwagon too look bloody stupid ‘cough’ Lily Allen.
    As for the French 3 strikes law, it’ll get thrown out the very first time it’s taken to the European court of human rights. It’s totally unenforceable.
    What most people seem to ignore is the fact that all these companies, that have no government laws or legislation, are collecting personal details of people who use these file sharing networks. I’m far more worried about what they’re gonna do to try and turn that into revenue generation, and whether ISP’s will disconnect people eventually because the hassle of keeping them as customers becomes too time consuming, chasing up legal threats, and requests for details etc.

  • microfreaks

    Obama is also in a heated battle over isp issues at the moment. I wonder if microsofts new purchase of drm has anything to do with it? I am not SPAMMING I just have some similar articles on my blog this morning is all. I also have the torrentfreak link on my blog as well.

    http://microfreaks.sosblog.com/MicroBlog-b1.htm

  • Soro

    I second that. Ivarona!

    Hear! Hear!!

  • Soro

    Reasoned Mind why do you always talk from your butt hole?

  • lverona

    “much of potential wrongdoing in life is avoided through common morality and sheer personal discipline”

    This is true in general. However, one has also to remember that most of wrongdoing in non-computer world deals with physical objects and requires actual physical action. Not only actually performing this action requires more motivation, it is also easier to discipline.

    In the world of non-scarce computer data, however, there can be no stealing or wrongdoing unless virtual data is implicitly connected, linked in some way to physical objects and physical processes.

    So if Internet happens to be an environment which cannot be turned into a market – the only way to solve the problem is to not create it – that is, do not link physical processes to the Internet. Do not tie business models which deals with real money to the Internet.

    The problem with online selling is same if you go underwater and try to sell water. You can of course purify it and make it a bit more marketable, but in general it is not a very effective business and certainly not a large scale one.

    Internet is an environment full of easily generated and replicated data. Selling copies of data in such an environment is not a very good idea.

  • me

    @14

    no one is stealing – the internet was designed for ‘sharing’

  • Anonymous

    Now EVERYONE knows WHY ? !!

    The French SUCK !
    The French SUCK !
    The French SUCK !
    The French SUCK !
    The French SUCK !
    The French SUCK !

  • basement dweller

    Iverona, you cannot win in a trial by arguing the law is stupid. :)

    When filesharing you trade files and provide value to whom downloads from you…

    The Internet simply is different from reality and a new model is exactly what has been sought for!

  • Anonymous

    no reasoned bunghole thats not a good idea.

  • manky goes to bollywood

    oh no the french need to start striking!

    On A MORE SERIOUS ISSUE… HAS ANYONE NOTICED HOW MUCH THE LADY ON THE TORRENTFREAK TV AD OVER THERE>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE KAT VON D

  • Anonymous

    sorry but its not “stealing” so you can stop coming here trying to brainwash people into thinking it is.

  • lverona

    “The reality is that people would drive insanely faster were there no rules to curtail it, same with paying taxes.”

    This is very true, my phrase was too general and indeed misleading.

    But in the example of cars and fast speeds, rules actually do work along the way reality is and not against it – if you drive too fast you can kill someone. This is physical reality. You can die yourself if you bump into a tree or not manage the turn.

    With file copying reality copying a lot is normal and it is not the same as going at a high speed since copying does not harm anyone unless it is implicitly tied to a physical process that can harm.

    Because restricting file copying is impossible, the only solution is to unlink any connections of physical processes to file copying.

    What does that mean in real life? Stop generating revenue according to copies sold.

    Historically, selling copies of music was possible for much less than a 100 years anyway. Before that musicians did not sell copies of their music since it was physically impossible. Basically, today it becomes economically impossible to sell copies. It is though physically very possible to distribute copies.

  • lverona

    “Iverona, you cannot win in a trial by arguing the law is stupid. :)”

    Yes, this is true. As Reasoned Mind correctly pointed out, in court you need those side issue arguments.

    I am more speaking about the general message, the interviews and political agendas. It still is not clear and there is a lot of focus on side issues, as far as I follow the cases.

  • Dan

    @21

    Yes.

  • Jimmy Reisen

    Wow, I sure feel for those folks. Not good to be French I guess!

    Jess
    http://www.online-privacy.us.tc

  • johannesfaust

    I´m glad I don´t live in that shitty country…

  • United Hackers Association

    good we can now add france to the list of cultures to be removed globally to brazil

  • Tigger

    Someone should print out these comments and send them to the goverments of the world!!!
    hmmmm, i wonder if TorrentFreak would take me to court for “stealing” they’re comments =P

    lverona…..I love you ;)

  • Reasoned Mind

    Iverona, your words are thoughtful and well said, an intelligent distraction from the scurrilous ad hom and typical drunken adolescent behavior of TF. Thank you.

    Much of what you say is very true. Digital will change a lot of things. But pirates don’t appear to be demanding that our digital revolution disconnect “virtual data and physical process”. The move to digital alone has handled that quite nicely.

    What pirates appear to be demanding is that the digital revolution disconnect intellectual work from the value we have always given to it. It’s a mistake in thinking and time will prove this out. The copies themselves are cheap and easy now, true, but the original work is the same, no less effort, talent, practice, education. It is not valueless, but pirates insist now that the work is as valueless as the copies themselves, so creators now must do what they do PLUS turning their time and attention to something else that cannot be pirated in order to continue their living. This, on the face of it, is profoundly selfish and shameful that we have done this to our creative artists in a broad range of industries. This is destructive and belittling to digital artists, and dissuades younger artists for the simple common sense that creative careers in digital no longer pay. This is the antithesis of “sharing”, Iverona, because there is no free lunch. Would you argue that Shakespeare did not properly “share” his great works with the world because by historical accounts he was tremendously protective of his writing and used his influence at the time to make certain he was paid well for every single use of it?

    The great illusion is the “buggywhip” canard, how pirates seek to make our migration to a new format appear similar to our evolution to the auto that put the whip manufacturers out. They are not the same.

    Had we literally evolved AWAY from music and on to something different entirely, as the auto is to the whip, (and here’s the key) and then we all had NOTHING ever again to do with music in the same way the whip went out of utility, there could be no argument. We’ve moved on. Get used to it. But that is not what happened at all; it’s the founding hypocrisy of filesharing.

    We all still love our music and we haven’t moved on from our music one bit. Only format and distribution has changed, so from the artists point of view it’s the exact same buggy whip and we use it exactly the same way, with new models coming out everyday. So naturally, they are discouraged that we now use a quirk in technology to use and enjoy as we always did and likely always will, but amazingly, through a breathtaking breach of human respect, we no longer pay them. We cheat them instead, incredibly in my view, because for now we simply can. It astonishes.

    But digital copying is no different. DIGITAL IS MATERIAL to everyone working in digital. Do you understand? More and more will be digitized but this will not mean that more and more will be rendered valueless. When society moves on FROM music to something else, the music industry will die properly. Until then, as long as we use and enjoy it— indeed every form of digital product and service— we can anticipate the creator who did the intellectual work to expect normal payment if we take it, and SURELY, we can say with great certainty any government of a just and fair culture will do whatever it takes to ensure that.

    With respect to you, and appreciation for your contributions here I say this: You make a very large misjudgment expecting government and industry to ever relinquish digital and the internet as a means of creation and distribution. Pirates have to be more persuasive than “You can’t stop us” or government will do whatever it takes. And when we lose our freedoms and our privacies in our devices and online, it will be digital piracy, the great immorality of our time, we have to thank.

  • United Hackers Association

    thats why i say start tossing cake and other food at them
    LET THEM EAT CAKE

    also in news torrentleech is down all day so far

  • siigh

    ^it is only down because TF refuses to post about the FCC making what france is doing illegal

    no more throttling in the US

    eat it europeans

  • Raptaur

    @ lverona

    I’ve never posted in these forums before, though I spend a lot of time reading them.

    A lot of people don’t like Reasoned Mind here and I it’s because they/it do present the best and what would seem to be a solid argument from their point of view.

    You however are the first person I’ve read here that has a response from the other side and delivers a point that is not tinged with a feeling of ‘…but this still doesn’t seem right to me…’

    That may be because I’m not sure I completely understand you point… which brings me to the point ^_^

    You’ve mentioned a few times that the solution is to unlink any connections of the physical processes to file copying. What do you mean by this statement?

  • Raptaur

    @ Reasoned Mind

    I’ve a question for you also.

    I’m well aware your opinions and views concerning digital piracy and have read numerous post showing your disfavour.
    To date however I don’t ever recall reading your view and solution, do you have an opinion on this also?

  • The doctor

    @ Reasoned Mind

    So what is the answer? In my mind it is actually pretty simple.

    Since the industry business models are really based around the Western economies because of the potential profits, then my simplified strategy is thus:

    Music, TV, Movie, Gaming studios, Indie groups, independent artists etc all make their works freely available online to be shared via P2P, or whichever technology surpasses it with a unique country specific, yet global tracker hard wired in.

    Apply a certain value of digital rights tax to all monthly internet accounts to users in every country. This may need to be staggered for various regions, but then artists from those regions earn staggered royalties as a result.

    Each country would pass this digital rights tax to a central organisation such as the “United Nation of Internet”, who would in turn then distribute digital fees to the various studios, artists etc based upon the number of downloads/ hits on the tracker.

    TV fees etc in various countries like the UK/ South Africa/ NZ would then be scrapped and TV moved pretty much entirely online.

    Copyright holders also come to the party and reduce the length of copyright because the community keeps these files alive using their internet resources, due to the massive “wagging tail” of file sharing to something along the lines of 10yrs for games, 20yrs TV shows, 30yrs Movies and 40yrs Music & books.

    And there are no restrictions upon how you can transfer, backup, copy, play the media etc afterwards.

    Sure this is only a simplified outline with a lot of potential technical bugs to be ironed out, but at the end of the day it gives everyone essentially what they want, but at the same time both sides have to COMPROMISE.

    Artists coming from outside of these countries can still be recognised and paid by the “UNOI” for their downloads.

    The big studios can then spend their time lobbying countries that haven’t signed up to the open internet format, most of which are places where true pirating of market place CD’s, dvd’s take place now anyway.

    The UNOI is non profit, 50% funded by digital rights revenue and 50% by studios, but run by a group of internet companies from each region, with open accounting on the net. Every TV show, song, book, album, artist, movie submitted to the tracking system pays a nominal license fee to join the potential shared pool revenue, which helps fund the above.

    Suddenly everything becomes worldwide release, at same global rates and the studios etc only need to maintain a small website where they can initially release the file to the web and the P2P system will take over from there. People can then download from there, or join in to a swarm on another tracker site.

    There you go everyone, now get out there and make it happen, plus iron out the tech bugs to prevent bots downloading Lily Allen 600 million times per month.

  • Raptaur

    @ The Doctor

    Excellent post, though I do see a couple of tech bugs there ;)

    This is how I see the only resolution to the Elephant. Most people if there county introduced enforcement/policing policy will happily pay a fee to make use of a VPN service.

    This fee could be going to the proposed UNOI instead.

  • Raptaur

    @ The Doctor

    Excellent post, though I do see a couple of tech bugs there ;)

    This is how I see the only resolution to the Elephant. Most people, if there county introduced an enforcement/policing policy will happily pay a fee to make use of a VPN service.

    This fee could be going to the proposed UNOI instead.

  • Anonymous

    @32

    “It is not valueless, but pirates insist now that the work is as valueless as the copies themselves, so creators now must do what they do PLUS turning their time and attention to something else that cannot be pirated in order to continue their living.”

    How about you turn that statement around? For example, Nine Inch Nails and/or Radiohead — two very popular bands within their genres — are not on any record label. They do however continue to distribute their music via physical CDs, etc. PLUS giving digital download options to everyone. Some of these options being free (yes, free, as in the artist is giving away their own music, for free, on the internet. Trent Reznor even goes as far as torrenting his Nine Inch Nails releases).

    Anyway, despite the fact that these artists give away their music for free in a digital format, they still offer CDs, limited edition packages, etc. for purchase. For example, Trent Reznor put out a special limited edition package of his Ghosts albums that cost a few hundred dollars — these ended up selling out fairly quickly. Radiohead gave people the option to donate before downloading their album In Rainbows.

    All in all, both of these artists still made a killing — without the help of a record label — even though they were literally giving their music away for free.

    Sure, you’ll probably read this and post something along the lines of “Well, not every artist has that kind of support or funds or …,” but I don’t care.

    Long live the internet.

  • The doctor

    @ Raptaur

    I agree, there are many potential bugs there, but hell, there are enough smart people in the world that can sort them out.

    The point I was trying to make is what nobody is even really discussing. There has to be a compromise that suits both parties!

    The genie is out of the bottle and fighting with pandora who is out of her box. The outcome will only hurt everyone in the end – Especially the artists and eventually potentially our civil rights.

  • Raptaur

    @ Anon…

    See Anon i take your point here cause some artists can make it this way.

    However as you also are aware by the comment…

    ‘…Sure, you’ll probably read this and post something along the lines of “Well, not every artist has that kind of support or funds or …,” but I don’t care…’

    ..means you are also aware that it will not work for others, even if you don’t care :(

  • Anonymous

    @43

    Well, if all sorts of artists attempted this, it would surely weed out the ones who do not have a large, supporting base. So either they figure out how to make people actually like them/enjoy their products or live like most other indie artists do :D

  • The doctor

    Further to my post #38

    There are more than 620 million internet users in the greater EU, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, FSU. Now sure the majority are not on stand alone Net connections, so if you divided by 3 for the average family it still leaves around 200 million connections at say 5-10 euro a month. (10 could be getting a bit excessive)

    That is potential revenue of 12-24 Billion euro per year. Now why oh why don’t the studios what a slice of that for open sharing???

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users

    Then there is still the other larger asian countries like Korea, Japan and China

    All told there are 1.5 billion people using the internet.

  • EPiPH0N3

    ViVA LA….Oh wait………

  • lverona

    “It is not valueless, but pirates insist now that the work is as valueless as the copies themselves”

    This is an interesting phrase. It does require careful thinking over in terms whether “pirates” do actually suggest that. I, for one, have not heard it put that way and as a first response do not believe that people who download generally believe that.

    If we speak about value of art, it is not only subjective, it is also literally impossible to put a price on. Art is art and economy is economy. One cannot base an economical argument on the value of art itself, not because it is valueless, of course not, but because it cannot be considered a physical object only. Each work of art is not only its physical representation, it is mostly the reaction of the person who is exposed to this work of art that is valued and that cannot be subject to economical analysis.

    So you see, this suddenly becomes a pretty complex philosophical issue if you look at it that way.

    But perhaps it is irrelevant what different people say. If we look at the procedure of file copying as it is, I really do not believe that file copying in itself undermines the value of art or even suggests that.

    How I understand the claim of the pirate parties is that the distribution of information should be free (as in freedom). In other words, file copying should be considered 100% legal.

    The buggywhip argument you put is once again shifted towards trying to put a value label on art itself. I personally do not believe this to be a strong argument – indeed, music is music, no matter the distribution methods. But, to be honest, I have never heard such an argument made towards music itself. That argument is valid only when it is made towards distributors. And indeed, Internet has made big media distribution largely irrelevant. Publishers, especially majors like Warner, Universal, EMI – they now do more to disrupt distribution rather than make it easier. They are hired by musicians to distribute their work, but instead their services are no longer needed. But this argument does not judge music itself in any way.

    Another thing is the stealing part. I see a lot of people criticise you for calling file copying stealing.
    I see your opinion. It basically, if I understand it correctly, goes down to this: perhaps file copying in itself is not stealing, but because in our society musicians largely depend on selling copies of their music, copying music becomes stealing. To use the terminology I’ve used before – in our society currently there is a very strong link between copying and a physical (economical) process.

    My response to this would be this: for most musicians music sales are not a living making thing. Selling copies is something that supports distributors. Most contracts with musicians, especially who are starting out, are like that – most money go to distributors. This is not bad, actually – musicians basically hire distributors to make them popular. They do not expect to make a fortune.
    Also, even if we consider album sales as something that is meant to provide musicians with a living, the publishers promise to take care of musician’s income puts responsibility on the publisher to adapt to the changing situation. When Internet just appeared, publishers had to start thinking of a new model, if they were really caring about musicians. But time went by and publishers passively did nothing. Now it is late to tell people that they are “pirates”. Publishers have failed to deliver a new business model, while musicians who made contracts with them trusted them. So, in a way, it is not the downloaders who are stealing, but the publishers who did not adapt and started instead spending money on absurd laws, continuing to promise to musicians income from the business model that no longer works.

    And also, musicians have relied on selling copies of music only last 80 years. That’s not a lot and that time seems to be over. Even if you are not a performing artist you can make money by writing music for games, movies and theatre and receiving one type payments for your work. I have a lot of friends who are professional composers and who work like that (in my case they all write for games). And most music history has nothing to do with selling copies of music.

  • Anonymous

    @45 Sep 23, 2009 at 19:21 by The doctor:

    The people now have to pay taxes for private companies and individuals who should be competing for market and creating new services and products instead of winning about it?!

    I say no. If they can’t sell anything or are unable to make a living so long.

  • Reasoned Mind

    I’m in the middle of my workday with no time for a considered reply. But in the meantime, Anon’s comment that he does not care is the literal manifestation of the ransacking to which I refer. Giving respect, in the marketplace as well as in life, is necessary if you wish to receive it in return. The creator sets the price and we pay it or we pass, but we do not screw them by making free copies and devaluing their work. Government will go to great lengths to secure this and the internet is what will lose.

    More to the point, TR, NIN and RH are all examples of the hypocrisy to which I refer.

    After a decade of industry money and promotion (!!), TR/NIN and RH have made zillions but ONLY with industry touring support and huge tangible cd sales. They’d all still be playing Holiday Inn lounges (and you would never know) without the kind of promotional money showered on them in their earliest days.

    So you know perfectly well this won’t work for new artists, and TR and RH have screwed their own compatriots by setting the bar at FREE while leveraging their fame gained on the backs of the labels in the first place. While selling—-wait for it—-ANALOG product to make more and more money. And you call this the digital future?? The entire mess reeks of hypocrisy and capitalist sales.

    So it’s ironic that these qualities are what you dislike in the industries, while your heroes leverage exactly the same thing. And the fact that you know all this and just “don’t care’ is why government will give you all the reasons to care in the decades ahead. Because piracy is based on lies and illusion, to explain and excuse a new form of digital theft. It’s sad, but so be it, and remind me it’s technically “infringement” if you like. But theft in any realm or format compels no less and the governments. I assure you, will oblige.

  • lverona

    @ Raptaur

    Hey!

    “You’ve mentioned a few times that the solution is to unlink any connections of the physical processes to file copying. What do you mean by this statement?”

    Thanks for the question – it is a very good one.

    What I mean is that the publishers and musicians basically stop looking at selling copies of music as their main business.

    I am working in the music industry and, working directly with Universal, EMI, Warner, Sony and several local majors I can tell you that although they do do this suing stuff and do not like file copying technology, they are actually changing their business pretty rapidly, albeit a bit late. But better late than never.

    The solution is called the “360 degree” model. What it means that the publisher (or the label) not only takes on itself the distribution of the media (which becomes an almost irrelevant service), but also promises to take care of arranging shows, tours, production of merchandise (like T-shirts, that kind of stuff), for non-perfoming composers find clients that need music, in other words do the 360 degrees service – take care of everything service.

    This 360 model places distribution not as a primary model, but only as one of many business models. This, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. Actually, it turns publishers into managers – something musicians indeed had all human history.

    This is what I meant.

    I also would like to mention that online sales of music if it is a pay by track service is also a link between a virtual process and actual physical money and is a very bad idea. A solution here is to make music downloads unlimited and free, but take money for a subscription to a well organised and updated music vault. In this case people pay for categorization and catalogue kinda services, not copies of files. And this is good, since Internet often needs putting a mess of data in order.

  • Anonymous

    @49 Sep 23, 2009 at 19:31 by Reasoned Mind:

    What? Filesharing take what from artists exactly?

    Sales? The U.K. music industry grew in size even though piracy is rampant there, should it not contracted because of it?

    I will tell you why it didn’t contract and it grew even further.
    It grew because filesharing don’t affect the artists capacity to sell anything it even may help sell more because is like radio that people get for free, never pay and still go buy the stupid plastic disc. So no your arguments that pirates take away something from artists are not meaningful or even correct. Music over the internet is not a CD in a store, is like waves reaching out for antennas so why do people have to pay? Besides labels put songs for free on youtube and when youtube say no to the prices the labels wanted and they blocked all U.K. artists what did happened? They cried foul because they would not have the exposure they needed, oh! poor artists.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Who really cares? I mean they’re French…a bunch of stuck up a-holes!

  • Anonymous

    @51, +1 for your response.

  • me

    johannesfaust #30: “I´m glad I don´t live in that shitty country…”

    What makes you so confident your country won’t soon turn into a shitty country like France? We’re hearing a lot of politicians worldwide seeking to imitate the 3-strikes-and-you’re-out model of the French.

    Doesn’t that worry you? Especially considering that it was the French who convinced everybody else that their concept of Copyright was a good thing (Berne Convention).

    Never underestimate the French: they have successfully exported the good and the bad, i.e. democracy AND copyright.

  • Anonymous

    @54 Sep 23, 2009 at 19:51 by me:

    The funny thing about France is that you guys can do something about it.

    Jamendo and other sites that force the music there to be licensed with liberal licenses is growing there, maybe soon people stop listening to the labels and start using services that only play songs that are CC Commons and it would be legal. Can you imagine the frustration of these people being forced to license their music under a CC Commons license that grant everything their are trying to stop?

    LoL

    I hope the french people start changing the way they consume music and start looking at the licenses to make choices. Don’t buy things from people who would rather hurt you then to choose to play nice.

  • Anonymous

    The way to fight against ridiculous copyright laws is to change how we consume things.

    Instead of going out and buying anything start looking at the labels and see if there is a liberal license, if there is not don’t buy it.

    Start going to places that impose, compel or force the use of liberal licenses.

    Jamendo is a good place to start, but there are hundreds of free and open source initiatives and the irony is that the best ones are french LoL

    Use google or wikipedia to find them and tell all your friends that they don’t need to use services that don’t enforce liberal licenses.

  • MissedMemories

    Oh.. this is interesting.. First time I see someone actually giving an answer from a good point of view to Reasoned Mind… and having a good discussion about the topic..

    Though I think this may not be the best place to have this kind of conversation (it became a conversation/discussion), since this is for commentaries… I will risk.

    You have IM clients.. right? Therefore, you can send letters (as A or such) to other people.. therefore, YOU CAN copy a file without actually copying it… What you do is send the “symbols” inside the file to the other person that that other person pastes it on a file whith the exact same name… Now… What would you call that? You’re just sending symbols over an IM message, and I’m pretty sure many files may have some repeated symbols.. therefore, you can’t really say they are infringint copyright..

    Putting that aside. Iverona has a good point and so you do. But… I’m going to ask you, Reasoned Mind, and please dedicate a piece of your next “post” to answer this: If Companies are complaining about loosing money because of ‘Pirates’, how do even companies that actually work on Free programs (there are quite a few) survive?

    They in fact do it, since they are obtaining money from it… so, if one can do it, why not everyone else?

    I’m not telling you it is still inmoral, however, as far as we have seen, the companies want to adapt Internet, instead of them being the ones to adapt to Internet.

    Some companies on gaming sector (Blizzard will get into it soon) actually are removing Lan mode to avoid people playing multiplayer (that is what most people want) without paying… but that is a mistake after seeing what happened with HellGate: London (Europe and America are not longer able to play online). That may see a solution, but they actually lived from Diablo 2 a long way, even with pirating there, because the game was worth of buying.

    Then, I can get to a conclusion: If people really like your work, they will buy it, or if you’re ditribuying it for free, they may donate some bucks they have spare.

    IN any case.. I know my argument has as many flaws as possible, through this is my opinion, and I know that both of you, Reasoned Mind and Iverona, have a good and clearer point of view than I do, therefore, you two can argue and get to a better conclusion..

    Now: Commenting to the new… I really think they shouldn’t be able to disconnect you from Internet, nor limit you… so, I’m for the one that is for them doing a good Opposition.

  • Raptaur

    @ lverona

    Thanks for the response; it is interesting the 360 idea.

    The fact that you’ve also mentioned that they’ve came to this idea makes me wonder about them pursuing the Lawsuit/DRM tactics. They should know that both are doomed to fail but I wonder if this is a ‘plug the leak’ tactic until they get something new in place.

  • tophing

    @43

    http://vimeo.com/5229486

    you can see that it’s not only for some (well known) artists…

  • Thraprod

    We do not suggest that musicians turn their attention to other efforts (aka find new jobs), we suggest that record label executives and employees find new jobs. When 8-Tracks went the way of the dodo bird, what happened? The factory owners and employees had to either embrace new technology or find new jobs. This is no different. It had been proven time and time and time again that the labels make far more profit from cd sales than the artist. The artist makes the bulk of their money from concerts and merchandising, and very little from actual cd sales. Furthermore, a decent amount of a cd’s price is from the manufacturing process (duplication, distribution, etc). Such things are no longer largely needed, so the labels should not be permitted to charge the same price they always have and simply PROFIT more because they themselves are no longer paying as much cost. In fact, the labels become nothing more than glorified agents without physical record sales, setting up tour dates, advertising. In this case, piracy becomes irrelevant to the issue because you cannot currently ‘pirate’ the experience of viewing a live concert. The value of the item comes from the live performance. It comes from the artist plying their trade, which they are NOT doing every time a cd is played, but which they ARE doing each time they actually perform.

    Moving on, it could easily be theorized that the devaluation of materials is not nearly as bad as you’re attempting to claim. Several futuristic views on society (Star Trek, etc) have little value on money (at a planetary level anyway).

    Eventually, it becomes an issue of supply and demand. Prices on CD’s are high because the labels produce low enough numbers to keep the demand higher than the supply. They no longer have that control because the supply is now limitless. By default, this lowers the price of the item in question (musical recordings). It is illogical to claim that there is ANY reason people should still pay $17+ simply for something in which the supply is limitless. The labels still want this pricing system in place despite it’s lack of logic. This is simply a matter of greed and ‘tradition’ instead of any actual brain power.

  • jeanlegrand@france

    livin’ in france is wonderfull, also the peer to peer, and most of french peoples do use the french languaged peer to peer sites, so easy to check, but there are always possibilities.
    I readed a lot of points the vieuw today, all very well tought..and I think, based upon historie we end up in the middle.
    I already used Napster right from the beginning,and continued with all what is in between them and The Pirate Bay, last week Demonoid quited France, but all the rest of the P2P works fine.(Do read the alternative torrentlist on this frak site.)
    Why?? even on Amazon.com new releases cost already € 18,50.
    Artists who sell them stuff after concerts get only €10 and are happy.
    Also the publicity on the net for CD’s concerts, plugging, etc without that no one knows about new music styles etc. Look the impact of your tube, no one is talking about fees, because half of the showed stuff is from peoples hoping to be discovered, IT’S LIVE, LET IT DEVELOP NATURAL, and we do, look to this forum, every one has respect for a point of vieuw, and returns structural, here en france nous disons”CHAPEAU”
    Greetz
    A+

  • lverona

    @ Raptaur

    “but I wonder if this is a ‘plug the leak’ tactic until they get something new in place.”

    exactly!

    as for DRM, it is rapidly going away, at least with major stores like iTunes, Nokia Music Store, etc.

  • Pingback: Sobre Tecnologia » Blog Archive » Aprobada la ley «Hadopi 2» y anunciados ya recursos en contra

  • Pingback: Aprobada la ley «Hadopi 2» y anunciados ya recursos en contra : Blogografia

  • Hohoho….

    I don’t know why French are complaining?
    I thought they’re used to taking it up the ass!

  • Pingback: Newest technology: Approved the law «Hadopi 2» and announced already resources in against

  • hot sex gary

    is sarkozy going to take a similar “3 strikes and you’re out” approach wearers of muslim headscarves?

  • M-RES

    @RM: “This is historically untrue, and you mislead buy suggesting it. The reality is that people would drive insanely faster were there no rules to curtail it, same with paying taxes.”

    So your claim in equivalence is that people don’t have a tendency to break speed limits? Then why do so many people get caught by speed cameras each year? Why the NEED for speed cameras if people’s natural propensity to speed is curtailed merely by the rules? Why the animosity towards these cameras and the public backlash at what’s seen as an unjust system by thousands of individuals who challenge what they see as ‘stupid laws’ and even go so far as to vandalise the cameras? Why the popularity of loopholes to these laws, websites giving information to people on how to beat speeding charges, road atlases showing the sites of cameras including the posted speed limits? I think you’ve just let out another intellectual bottom-burp.

  • Mystik

    Realistic Economies

    This is definitely one of the most interesting discussions here on TF. But people seem to skirt some of the realities.

    Traditional economies were based upon scarcity. If there are only 100,000 items a value of the item can be set to a degree. This can still be seen in some ways today. Today items are overproduced once a greater quantity exists (low demand) a lower price is set to remove excess from the marketplace. Therefore the value of an item is never completely the same day to day. So the people can control the value of an item. Now comes in advertising the whole point is to create “artificial demand” to maintain or inflate the price of a product (To remove or mitigate the control of the people). When the first records were released they tried to base them on scarcity. By limiting production they controlled the value of the item. So they could control the price. As more advances grew (8 Track, VHS) the control was not as great people could easily copy and give to a friend, which happened quite often. People have never like the control of prices by the industry. Choosing instead to record off the radio or the TV. Only buying when the price was decreased to what they wanted to pay. Therefore the advances made them able to control the prices again. IP has always tried to be tied somehow to the scarcity model to project a perceived or controlled value and to show a product instead of an idea. The reality of the situation is that all IP can be copied over and over as many times as is needed with little cost in comparison to physical goods. The link from scarcity and physical has been completely severed today. IP is desperately trying to regain that link to keep the control they have always had through any means they can find to do so.

    We control the vertical …

    Controlling the content of what is put out has been one of the vital ways the IP biz has been able to be what they are today. Telling the artist what music they can or cannot put on a album even to the point of saying “you sing this song NOW!” those songs were usually not even wrote by the artist and the song was crafted for one purpose to make money! The rest of the album is filler. Taking great ideas for movies and “altering” them against the wishes of the artist to guarantee extra revenue. To software released with known or leftover bugs to “force” that 30% of the original cost upgrade next year or to proprietary file formats or systems or even licensing requirements to make sure they get all the sales while stifling their competitors. To games which are limited in some fashion to increase future sales of a “Part 2″ or have been made to be played by only one person at a time limiting co-op play to force another copy to be bought (the latest craze from the game publishers).

    This control has been hated for years by the people. People have been on a fruitless quest to avoid this without any ability to do so. Now that the internet is here the people have the power to do so. They are exercising the control that they had always wanted.

    No Sneaky peaky!!!

    No you cannot see the whole movie!, No you cannot listen to the whole album!, No you cannot use our software without buying it!, No you cannot play the game first! That’s what we have been told. The “Demos” of all these are designed to do *ONE* thing get you to pay for it! In some cases of movie trailers the scenes were never even in the movie or where added to the movie *only* to be used in the trailer (the current practice now, marketing is done even before a movie is even scripted). Now with the internet people can “try before they buy” seeing how good the movie, software or game is first. The decline in album and DVD sales is a direct result of this. People see cr*p and avoid it.

    Sorry, we don’t DO refunds!

    Didn’t like the movie? Software didn’t work? Game is lame and/or has bugs? Sorry your SOL! Go to Game Crazy and trade it in! Sell it on eBay! is what they will tell you.

    Blow up my stereo!

    Install that shinny new piece of software only to have it wipe the contents of your computer? Insert the new CD you just bought only to have it start to control your computer for you? Bought that new game which demands you connect to the internet to be able to play it? These are some of the scenarios that are currently happening to many people. Ever try going after the company to get the money back for the lost information? Damaged equipment? Good luck they will not do nothing. The only way to get anything it to take them to court. Have a 100k in the bank no problem, joe schmo not a chance in hell.

    1-900-A*S-REAM …

    That nice new $1k software doesn’t do what it is suppose to? Need help with it not doing what it is suppose to? I’m sure you heard this… “Do you have a support plan? No? Well let me transfer you to sales!”. In fact there are software companies now that include documentation that is out of date! Go to the website? sure if you pay for access to the support section.

    We have to keep it high!

    All Digital media could be extremely cheap. The argument for keeping prices high is to protect physical sales from decline. Translation: We don’t want to change!. Then you have (in the US) RedBox unattended rental kiosks which rents movies for $1.00. They are going after them saying they are undervaluing the content and undermining physical sales. All in an effort to artificially control the prices. I remember when they said switching to plastic bottles over glass was going to save them money and would be recyclable etc etc etc, what happened when the plastic bottle came out? the price was the same and you got 30% less! They want to increase profits where-ever they can that is what the pricing is truly about.

    Gone with the Wind…

    So much has been lost, great movies, music, ideas and dreams because they were not profitable or some company blocked it because it would have caused their product to be obsolete. We have lost more works due to the monopoly of IP than we could ever dream of.

    The Next Generation…

    New artists are arriving daily all over the world. New filmmakers creating bringing their visions to life. People creating new content in ways not even possible just 5 years ago. There will always be the arts no matter what happens to IP biz.

    The bottom line …

    Ip has alienated, raped and taken advantage of it’s customers for years all in the name of profits. The Internet has allowed people the chance to fight back against all the control, price fixing and manipulation that the IP biz has done. By not listening to the people they have created a generation of people who are marked by an almost total refusal to pay for any content. The more they cling to old business models and excessive profits and lifestyles the more they will alienate the people they need to survive. More and more people are speaking out against copyright laws as they are now. Each day the numbers of people using P2P grows. With each Jamie Thomas and Peter Sunde more people move and more people move away from following them. This opens the door to the next generation of content creators which care more about the art than the money something that has been missing for the last century. The only death here is the death of the Profiteers who are in reality by definition, to loot and plunder all in the name of more bounty for the captain, are the true Pirates of this century.

    -M

  • Neurotic froggie

    musican first lady Carla Bruni?
    musican?
    really?

  • Pingback: World Economic and Financial Crises | HOT Trends and Breaking News

  • 4nd

    Apply a certain value of digital rights tax to all monthly internet accounts to users in every country.

    The problem with a wide-scale “downloading tax” is the same as the problem with the blank media levies: Not everyone who uses the taxed product in question uses it for an illegal purpose. With this tax you would increase the fees for families who’ve never heard of filesharing. Not particularly fair if you ask me.

    Sure, you could make it “opt in” but that wouldn’t really solve the problem. People would still share files using an untaxed connection and you’d be right back at square one.

  • Julien

    I’m french and as always when there is an article about France, it’s party for french haters… Have fun guys…

    Anyway, there are stuff that you should bear in mind :

    1. This stupid law was voted but which country actually succeeded to make it work? None…!
    And even though they succeed, how many time it will take them? Months, years?

    2. Our Consitutionel Council will be happy to kick the ass of Sarkozy once again.

    3. Http downloads, private trackers and more effectively Gnunet/Freenet will always be there for us. Cause frankly i don’t give a fuck if a french retard is being caught downloading Lili Allen stupid songs on a public tracker like mininova… Fuck him!

    4. It’s just a question of time before the socialists are back into power and then erase this stupid law.

    See you guys and just remember that there are french people that aren’t what you always think of frenchies…

  • basement dweller

    We haven’t “evolved” away from music but realized it’s the musicians who make it and not the record labels!

    Just like American customers have ‘evolved’ away from their own crappy auto makers to the Japanese ones. :)

    That’s also a very valid development to rid old rigid stubborn companies who refuse to modernize…

  • Raptaur

    @ Mystik

    Enjoyable read…

  • lverona

    @ Mystik

    “they have created a generation of people who are marked by an almost total refusal to pay for any content.”

    ‘Selling music’ in my opinion is a bad term because it implies that music itself can have a set price. But art is subjective and basically priceless and nobody ever tries to place price on music itself – all such attempts are pathetic and people do not react well to buying “content”.

    In reality, the record “industry” is/was selling discs – material carriers with copies of music. And in the Internet they are now trying to place a price on music itself, which really is impossible.

    May I share an article I wrote on the matter:
    http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship&a=authorship_property

  • Wednesday Addams

    @ lverona

    I knew that the reasonable answer to RM’s fraudy crap would finally come from Russia.

    But why on earth you spell “Louigi” with that “o”? Straight transcription from the way it sounds in Russian?

  • me

    @Julien: ignores les bashers anti-France, c’est du folklore. ;)

    This said, don’t count on the socialists to revert / repel this law: in most countries, socialists are more rabid pro-copyright talibans than conservatives. Just look at the US DMCA: sponsored by democrats. UK? Labour is pro-copyright. Germany? SPD is even more censorship than CDU… Brazil? Disconnecting file sharers? Etc. etc. etc…

    Don’t count on socialists (PS) to help. If you want to change something in France, either ignore that law, use even more Freenet, or start your own Pirate Party and gather support.

    Bonne chance et bon courage.

  • lverona

    @ Wednesday Addams

    hehe, no, in Russian there is no such name )
    Afaik, Louigi is same as Lois, but to me the reason was that I just like how it looks with an “O” more.

  • Pingback: Technology society: Genehmigt das Gesetz "Hadopi 2" und angezeigt schon Mittel in gegen

  • Pingback: Learning technology: ???????? ????? «Hadopi 2» ? ??????????? ??? ???????? ? ??????

  • Wednesday Addams

    @ lverona

    Hell I know it’s not Russian name, it’s Italian and spells Luigi. I also know that in Russian it would sound like [luidzi] (sorry for that [z], I just don’t find a better equivalent for a [z] with that long curly tail it should have). And if we were to transcribe it back to English, Russian [u] would look like “ou” and therefore spelling Louigi would get some sense. And of course it looks prettier. Kinda French :)

    And by the way “Lois” lacks for sure “u” in the middle. Otherwise it sounds [lua] and means “Laws”. In French again, of course :)

    A little philology lesson for a guy who is able to lesson all the entertainment industry to get some common sense. I’m kinda proud of myself :)

  • qsct
  • Pingback: heti fnordok « /dev/blog

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.