This isn’t over though – beware.

:P

OK for the fundamental right stuff, but it also says that systematically monitoring the Internet connections of the whole country is just OK for as long as there data protection directive applies to the information collected.

Ooops. Beware of HADOPI2. It will be better written (not too difficult) and will legalize Big Brother in France.

Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie …. Aux armes citoyens ! Formez vos bataillons !

Link, for the French speakers:

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/2009/decisions-par-date/2009/2009-580-dc/decision-n-2009-580-dc-du-10-juin-2009.42666.html

It’s a good thing this stupid law was overturned, but what ridiculous logic. Leave it to the French.

So I hope this is good news – but we’ll see how long it takes to become reality.

But the article says you can still loose your connection from a court. It seems to me that the high court didn’t care so much for being able to access the internet, but for the courts losing their monopoly on sentencing and penalizing. The don’t want some film company penalizing the user. The want only them to be able to do it.

So the outcome is indeed good, but it is by luck alone.

I’ve translated the relevant sections of the constitutional decision against Hadopi here:
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/hadopi-rejected-by-the-french-constitutional-council-i/

Feel free to use and abuse, and tonight raise a glass to the fall of the house of Hadopi!

——————-
Bagwell.
http://certcollection.org/forum

Food and shelter can be taken away too.

People have their homes foreclosed in America or starve to death in Africa.

It makes it less of a human right then?

Everything have limits including freedom but that doesn’t mean it’s less important, the internet is part of the infra structure that enables not only freedom to knowledge but also the right to earn a living, the right to a voice independent of who you are or what you believe in, even people who think that white supremacy is ok have the right to speak about it that is the other side of freedom that people have to deal with it but it is the people who have to deal and not be mandated to obey.

If you don’t protect the infra structure that enables all of us to exercise our rights those rights will be lost, the internet is part of those rights in my mind and should not be taken away or tamper with it and in a lot of countries they are not taken away even prisoners have access to TV, games and the internet and apply to online courses.

Criminals have rights too.

About people downloading pedophile stuff if the law says it is wrong go and punish the people you don’t need to meddle with the internet.

If a person don’t like p0rn he should make a white list for himself and he will never see a bad site in his life but you see it have to be a personal choice not a government mandate if history tells us anything is that every time governments try to micromanaged something is always inadequate.

@Jonnara I kind of border on being a nihilist so most things I do are for the sake of wasting time. When I say that I’m bored I mean it in the sense that I wouldn’t bother responding if I wasn’t, not in the sense that I’m just here to troll.

For the record, it is not my intention to preach what should be human rights (which I don’t believe to be anything other than subjective anyways), just to point out how ridiculous it is to consider internet access some sort of necessity. So I am practicing what I’m preaching, I don’t believe I have any sort of god given right to the internet, I guess I just didn’t quite convey what I’m preaching quite well enough. That’s the downside to debating in a comment section I suppose, can’t proof read for clarity when you’re making all kinds of replies ~_~

@thain well shit. Guess next time I’ll read the article a bit closer, the decision makes a lot more sense to me that way.

Today we have to fight for preserve our rights whenever and wherever.

We are not customers, we are citizens!

Add to the fact you stated your self “you do not do as you preach”.

Basically i do not think you should be voicing that opinion until you have donated/aid worked for these poor country and its people.

Than maybe your reasoning would carry some wight.

Plus I too would respect you, otherwise stop giving us the blooding heart treatment.

Well this law made it so that if one of your familly member does it, everybody get their access cut off. So whatever ethic or logic you might want to imply, this law was just pretty much stupid. For the main points: you had to proof that you were not the one downloading illegally, wich is clearly against french basic laws (ppl is presumed innocent) and with all the false IP usage in internet, I fugure there would’ve been alot of mistakes.
Second point is, a fair jugement is supposed to be taking place for every crime or illegal stuff you’re accused off, this law was made to pass through that and just cutt off your access if you where “supposed” guilty.

This law was made under an assumption: the CD is failing because ppl download. This assumption has been proven wrong a couple of time (cf harvard, ENTS).
Actually the concert Segment is exploding in France. And now, we have less and less “studio” artists and more and more “concert” artists. I think it’s a good thing, and it seems that many “not-in-contract-with-the-majors” artists as well.

Now I can ask you a question: Why the fuck would we buy a 20€ CD in 2009?

Going by your twisted logic, food and shelter aren’t fundamental human rights either, since both of these can be used for illegal purposes.

But apparently you *do* consider food and shelter fundamental human rights, so you’re a hypocrite.

Your argument fails.

For instance I hope you’d agree I don’t have the right to access kiddy porn on a 1gbit connection 24/7/365. I’m just using an extreme example to show why a definition is needed, not for any sort of analogy.
——

Free speech is important.
Freedom of information is important.
However there are limits on both, and I don’t consider cutting off home internet access to someone who insists on using their connection for illegal purposes to be a violation of some fundamental human right.

I also don’t believe there should be anything illegal about file sharing (which is another reason 3 strikes is ridiculous imo), but calling internet access a fundamental human right implies that we should never cut anyone off from it in the same way we don’t cut convicts (again, 3 strikes = no conviction = another reason it’s ridiculous) off from their food or shelter.

http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/hadopi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee

I’m so stunned I pooped my panties!

I view it like this, it is a human right to have access to knowledge anything that makes part of that infra structure that allows access to it(knowledge) is part of the human rights.

If you attack the infra structure that enable human rights you are attacking human rights.

no?

Finding agriculture news, best loans, markets and tips is made trivial with the internet without it people would probably pay more and not have the amount of knowledge exchange to their business.

People all around the world can access DIY sites that will teach you how others solved a vast variety of problems including but not limited to:

- Purification of water.
- Laws.
- Production of greens.
- Manufacturing processes.
- How to make basic sanitation.

If it’s not a human right should be considered basic infra structure that amplifies the basic human rights and as a conduit for them and should be protected as an vital public asset.

And again, because you seem to have missed it the first few times, cutting off home internet access is not the same as cutting off internet access in general.

@58 – lol. I’m aware it’s possible that you’re correct, but I’m also aware that if something like that ended up happening it could potentially be for the better because then maybe we’d get *real* backlash against the MAFIAA. I’m choosing to give them the benefit of the doubt about their level of intelligence though.

@60 – people living in modern world!=people. Being able to live in modern world!=being able to live.
As such home internet access being fundamental to life in modern world!=internet access being fundamental to life of people.

As the banks move forward and change the way we interact with money, than that changes the basic fundamentals of living, which you dont seem to understand.

Perfect example of this is japan. All your account payments for train fares are now logged on your mobile phone and you run it pass a scanner to pay for your trips to and from work or school and use internet connect to the bank to make these payments.

Your backward view of the world doesn’t effect the advances that is happening.

Most of the wallpapers are high resolution (HD Wallpapers).
More than 1000 Wallpapers.

We talking about people here who sue kindergartens for playing kids music cds.

They have also send infringement notices to a online IP printer. All they see is an IP address, not homes, not schools or businesses.

No they will be cutting people from knowledge and free speech.

Which is the same thing as cutting people from schools, business, library’s and etc.

Can you imagine fathers and mothers that make a living using the internet to sell something being cut off because their children download some music from the internetzzz?

Can you imagine those people who telework and need access to it being cutt off, can you imagine how Steve Jobs would feel if the iTunes was gone from the net because an employee download a music using their accounts?

Not that I couldn’t have just gone to my bank and requested that they put the transfer through for me, or sent them a cheque (ugh, waiting for mail while going through withdrawl, no thanks) but even if internet is the *ONLY* option to make a payment the 3 strikes law would hardly have resulted in not being able to use the internet for the things you claim make the internet fundamental for living a reasonable life.

Also, if you’re purchasing something that *ABSOLUTELY* can’t be purchased without the internet, instead of claiming that internet is a fundamental human right, maybe you should be bitching that a net connection shouldn’t be required for things that are necessary. Especially since, at least my government, doesn’t give out free computers and net access to everyone.