France Fights Piracy with New System Three strikes and you're offline A three-way agreement has been reached between the French government, ISPs and the music/film industry to develop an anti-piracy system in France. The system is based on a “three strikes rule”. Illegal downloaders will receive two warnings that they are being monitored and that their downloading must be stopped. After a third time, their broadband access will be cut off. In a speech supporting the new system, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “The Internet must not become a high-tech Far West, a lawless zone where outlaws can pillage works with abandon or, worse, trade in them in total impunity. And on whose backs? On artists' backs.” The new system is opposed by a number of politicians as well as by consumer groups in France who fear that it’s restrictiveness is excessive enough to violate consumer freedoms.
|
2 edits | Sounds fair to me This sounds like it gives the free loaders (thieves) ample opportunity to correct their downloading habits or lose their internet connection. Yet not be subject to unfair fines from the copyright holders the first time they infringe. The only thing that needs to be addressed is that copy protected works should be clearly stated and known, at the expense of the copyright holder, as to what is allowed with their works, and not to assume that everything created is automatically copyrighted.
edit: to change the word "free loaders" to "thieves" | |
|  | | | Re: Sounds fair to me Good intentioned law, with real consequences that aren't fair. First, let's look at this from the opposite angle. Should grandma lose her internet, because grandchildren do illegal activity on it? I mean, even the best parents, don't know everything their kids get into. Even if you punish them, kids are just that dumb to do it again. Second, let's say a person does it on a friends pc, the same can be said. Should they lose internet. The question then arises (and its not stated here), for how long? Is this like a blacklist where you can never obtain another isp permanently or is this like a shor term ban? If shorterm ban, is it just that ISP or all? Exactly how this works, is not clearly explained. Personally, I don't think this is a good law, minus the fact it doesn't sue people or punish them into financial ruin. | |
| | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me jc100
Should Grandma lose her car because the Grandchildren wrecked it, she did. Children's actions have consequences for adults.
mogooder
--
"The Secret is in the RITHMATIC" Henry Hudson | |
| | |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | I would say yes in that grandma should be supervising it's use.
And if she happens to slip up in that supervision she gets 2 warnings first. | |
| | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me Well that's a different argument Dot. Grandma WOULD NOT be liable if said person who stole it was over 18. Criminal charges would be filed and her grandchild would be solely liable as that's Grand Theft. Now if you argue the fact the kid is a minor, then it's tricky. Yes, grandma shouldn't let their kids on the computer unsupervised. Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me said by jc100: Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. Excellent point. My problem is this "Under the agreement -- drawn up by a commission headed by the chief executive of FNAC, one of France's biggest music and film retailers -- service providers will issue warning messages to customers downloading files illegally.
If users ignore those messages, their accounts could be suspended or closed altogether"
Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. That shouldn't happen. Not to mention the Artists that CHOOSE to give out free music. Will they be even further blackballed be their respective recording industry? | |
| | | | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Sounds fair to me said by S_engineer:Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. Sounds like the DMCA.
At least in France you'll get a few warnings before the extortion letter arrives. | |
| | | | | |  PiggieI Actually use WindstreamPremium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL | said by S_engineer: My problem is this "Under the agreement -- drawn up by a commission headed by the chief executive of FNAC, one of France's biggest music and film retailers Least all the legal eagles not forget here, yes, pirating works that are copyrighted is not legal but smell the money trail. With RIAA making about 4 times per song sold in America than the artist, who is the copyright protecting?
Of course it's protecting the RIAA's money not the author's song works or rather protecting the RIAA four times a much.
Also beware and very scared anytime large cooperate interests control law making.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my pork belly | | |
|
| | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | This isn't about grand theft. This is an ISP after 2 warnings canceling service. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As it stands now in the US, the RIAA could simply file suit against grandma and they'd win (as we just saw a mom go down in court flames recently) no matter who "really" did it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example)
My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by Camelot One:I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. You would push computing back to the stone age with a law punishing people for the abuse via virus or spam bot.
I want to know what happens when they get a box that has been rooted and used for whoring warez ? If a trojan or infected website was used do they nullify the offense ? To much unanswered for this to be a good law. I have had boxes rooted that were fully patched behind a soft firewall and I left the box unattended for the week end when I went to work and came back to a drive full of warez. All be it , it was 6 years ago when I had a nice ds3 to my office. That could have got me kicked off the net from that provider.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me Even though the above reply is off subject concerning the virus and bot stuff, The point is... If you are informed on your first warning (remember, they give you three (3) warnings)that your computer is infected with a virus, bot, rootkit, or whatever, that should give you ample time to correct the problem with no loss of service. After the third strike, however, you should be counted out! Likewise, if you have been warned on three different occasions that your internet service has been used illegally, then it should be cut off, no matter who you want to blame for the illegal use. And another thing while I'm at it. The opinions of thieves don't matter much. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving?
Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension.
Makes sense to me. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me said by diskdocx:So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving? Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension. Makes sense to me. Thats just not an accurate comparison. It would be more like, if you knowingly loaned your car to a drunk, who repeatedly drove your car drunk, you would risk losing the car the THIRD time he was caught.
And I'd be fine with that too.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me That's fine for the grandkid analogy, but I was referring specifically to the bot/virus issue.
No one is willingly offering that up, so the drunk driver analogy is moot, unless the drunk driver happened to steal your car.
I've been hacked, and ended up as a bot on mIRC. Granted that was a number of years ago, and my computer is far more secure now than it was then. But the bottom line is that these measures will mostly hit casual users and unfortunately a number of tech unsavvy folks. Not the hardcore pirates.
What I expect to see is a lot more hacking/IP theft/virus attacks so that the hardcore folks will get around these measures. | |
|
| | | | | | | | A majority of PC users even when warned would be clueless that their boxes are owned on top of that no body has even addressed the issue of hackers accessing unsecured Wi-Fi IP connections.
This proposal is just another last gasp attempt of the international mega-corps to retain their death grip on consumers and artists. | |
|
| | | | | | instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me said by LowRider:instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. Because then we are right back to ISPs monitoring what you do on the internet. Even with good intentions (in the case of stopping infection) the idea still won't fly.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | |  JoeOnSunsetDoublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Okay, yes, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system. | |
| | | | | | JoeOnSunsetDoublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | Re: Sounds fair to me said by Camelot One:I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Oh right, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system.
Edit: quoted. | |
|
| | | | | Easier said than done. Read my reply to guy above. As I stated, technology is a more difficult thing. There's a huge generational gap. Parents today don't know much on computers, where as kids, do. Most parents are lucky to be able to turn one on. Hell, I didn't own a computer until about 8 years ago. I taught myself everything. Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Yes, I am older say a 12 yr old kid with a 35 year old parent, but the argument stands. Computers are a rather new tool, and most over 25+ never had them as a kid. So we were all left to learn them later on, where as children now are growing up with them. | |
| | | | |  Mactronel Camino RealPremium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
1 edit | Re: Sounds fair to me said by jc100:Easier said than done. ... Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Being your Mothers "Age"  I learned, sometimes the hard way. She learned and they will too. If the first two times don't get the lesson across... The third time surely will. 
Sorry, I don't Buy it.
Obviously YMMV.
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me said by Mactron:said by jc100:Easier said than done. ... Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Being your Mothers "Age" I learned, sometimes the hard way. She learned and they will too. If the first two times don't get the lesson across... The third time surely will. Sorry, I don't Buy it. Obviously YMMV. I'd point out that ignorance is not a defense in ANY criminal action. And I don't think it should be with computers either. If you aren't smart enough to know how to use them, and if you aren't watchful enough to monitor what other people are doing on YOUR computer, you should not have one. ECommerce be damned.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | | | What really is the problem? What is really being gone after?
Passing legislation illegalizing the possession of burnable media? Nope.
Passing legislation illegalizing the failure of WGA? Nope.
What's to prevent someone from copying a movie they get from the rental place?
Two friends copying each other's collections? How are you going to stop that? You can't - at least not without raising some serious privacy concerns and building a prison wall around your entire country.
"They" are "going after" the internet. Why? Because it's a distribution channel.
This has nothing to do with copyright. And the "rents" running our governments don't get it. They're not savvy enough. Once the older, non-computer-savvy generations are no longer running the government, those who are running the government will get it.
One solution is to simply provide for a non-commercial personal purposes fair use exemption. But what's more important, and much more doable, and much more likely to start happening -- as a matter of fact, it's already happening -- is if artists stop selling their copyrights. If artists simply retained their copyrights, this problem would go away forever. Follow this to the T, and more and more artists will get the major labels off their back. In fact, it's not inaccurate to say that for some artists, (or let's say for non-union artists), and even then... they guy who wrote the original script for "The Island", for instance, got maybe a few thousand dollars at best all together, while his producer walked away with a 7-digit settlement ... Why? Because he "sold" his copyright. Talk about heartbreaking disincentive... Anyway -- it's not entirely inaccurate to say that some of these major labels are existing "on the backs of" the artists. 4.5 cents per iTunes download. 7% of wholesale per CD... not a whole lot - it's practically giving it away after you add in the expenses.
They're not going after "pirates". They're going after distribution channels, using politicians to do it, and making it look like they're going after pirates. Meanwhile, you just make a copy of your friend's collection while s/he makes a copy of yours... lather, rinse and repeat millions of times all over the world. Same difference. It's a futile attempt no matter how you slice it. You can't stop it, it can't be stopped. If you're going to try to stop something, might as well go after the distribution channels.
The problem here is that it drives anything that's not "approved" by the majors underground... but realistically, they've lost the battle anyway. It's a brand new day - the only question is how quickly we rebuild, how quickly artists refuse to sell copyrights ever again - and how quickly an infrastructure can be built to provide a means to keep these artists fed, clothed, and housed so they don't have to sell their copyrights to make ends meet. These types of laws will eventually become pointless - once artists stop selling their copyrights.
They're going after the distribution channels. That's what this is all about. Hopefully artists will begin to realize that copyright should never be sold to anyone under any circumstances, that it is as precious as gold, and that our culture doesn't have enought respect for it.
I think we all need to respect copyright more than we do. | |
|
|  dks7
join:2004-05-31
Omak, WA | In all reality most of the sharing goes on with torrent right? Ok so their going to monitor your torrent traffic right? Simple solution, rent a cheap $50 dedicated server from a facility, remote in, leech your balls off torrents. Then download off that box with FTP + SSL. problem solved, in all fairness most people who are worried about p2p blocking at the ISP level just need to spend a few bucks to circumvent that. I am not advocating torrent or anything, just saying these tactics are just bandaids that can easily be undone. And by the time they find a way to filter crap so tight u cant move pirated content, most legit content wont come through either. What if an ISP is filtering your downloads and thinks a movie trailer from apple.com is a pirated movie. Its about that time most people at home that enjoy using the internet no longer have any desire to want to use it. Thus is goes away like a fad and the ISP's will have to get real jobs, got a shovel? | |
| | | | OceanJones: Are you paid by the music industry to post stupid comments or are you naive? | |
| | |  ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | Re: Sounds fair to me he sounds like a paid shill
how about leaving the downloaders/uploaders alone and get on with life? | |
| | | | | | Re: Sounds fair to me Nope, I am neither paid nor a shill... just a average guy with a Conscience. As far as I'm concerned, they should keep the system they use now and sue you the first time you infringe. If you think it's ok to break the law, just tell it to the judge and jury.... then pay your fine and go crying about how YOU were wronged by the big bad music industry. You should be happy they are being this generous by giving you three strikes and then you only lose your internet service. I hope they aren't giving up their right to sue infringers too. | |
|
approval from:
Doctor Four 
ThrowDemsOut
thumbs down from:
Doctor Four
| It should be obvious by now It should be obvious by now that society isn't going to continue to allow Piracy. Any efforts to imprison and fine Pirates is a good thing. The more of these criminals we get off the streets the better. They are the scum of society and belong in prison and that's exactly where they are headed. | |
| | | | Re: It should be obvious by now Hi Taylor Troll. Haven't seen you in awhile. Why not just register so we can have a good clean conversation ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | |  Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Re: It should be obvious by now We can't call him Taylor Troll anymore. I demoted him to Taylor Parrot after his little rant saying that anyone whose computers were compromised by the Sony rootkit fiasco were thieves and deserved what happened. Never mind that the rootkit only caused problems for people who'd bought the discs. 
When he quits parroting the "militant anti-'pirate'" line and starts trying to hold actual debates, I might consider reinstating him to his former position. Honestly, I'm not holding my breath.
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
| | | |  AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Re: It should be obvious by now Hey, he's got every right to be a "militant" anti-pirate.
It's about a million to one pro-pirate vs anti-pirate on the 'Net (which really speaks volumes of young people's morals these days,) so a speck of balance is a good thing. | |
| | | | | Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Re: It should be obvious by now said by Alpine:Hey, he's got every right to be a "militant" anti-pirate. It's about a million to one pro-pirate vs anti-pirate on the 'Net (which really speaks volumes of young people's morals these days,) so a speck of balance is a good thing. I'm sorry, did you read my post? Where I recounted how he said people affected by the Sony rootkit problem "deserved it" even though they were buying the product instead of pirating? I don't see where the Taylor Parrot introduces any sort of "balance" to ANY discussion.
While there may not be as many people on "his side" of the argument here, that leaves no reason to accept childish tripe as debate. I've got no problem with people who want to protect intellectual property, but I won't hesitate to call out simple trollish parroting where I see it. You've got the right to do the same. Neither "side" benefits when simplistic jingoism mars the discussion.
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
|
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
2 edits | Doesn't even have the balls to register.
Sometimes anonymous posters have something useful to say,
other times they are just trolling, like this example is.
*PLONK!*
Back on ignore you go...
BTW: I didn't mean to give him thumbs up - that was a
mistake on my part.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  Well thought out
Seriously, if they have to tell you THREE TIMES that you're being monitored and they know you're performing an illegal act, you don't deserve internet access.
This won't do much to deter the hardcore pirates really, but will likely deter the average joe.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
|  KeepOnRockinMusic Lover ForeverPremium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Downloaders? This may a case of the news media getting the terminology mixed up again.
Is France monitoring what people download or they just going after the content distributors (ie, people who upload?
It looks the US isn't the only country where the music/film industry can buy politicians  | |
| | | Gee... That Sounds Very "Vishy" To Me! Collaborators...
Where are the "Maquis" when they need them?
An independent authority will be set up and put in charge of deciding when to issue Internet users with "electronic warning messages". The authority will be supervised by a judge.
I sure hope that "independent authority" requires more to send an ISP a complaint than NBC Universal does. Of two (bogus) complaints sent in my direction, they at least officially retracted one of them several hours later... Apparently, it never occurs to them to look at the actual data/content/payload to really see it it is theirs, they only have to perceive it to be, to whine.
-NK | |
|  RealoRcPremium
join:2003-01-25
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Let's get France banned from the i-net Here's a rough outline:
1) Person A make a copyrighted video, and share it only with Person B.
2) Person B uploads it to YouTube.
3) Person A ask YouTube for logs of french ips that watched said video.
4) Person A give the list to french government demanding those users be disconnected from the internet.
5) Repeat. | |
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Let's get France banned from the i-net That's silly on 5 levels.
Person A should send a takedown request to YouTube which would be honored and then he should call the FBI on Person B for uploading it in the first place.
Any French users would receive warnings if anything on this plan.
Seems completely reasonable to me. | |
|
 MaxxxtPeculiar Mental TwistPremium
join:2001-06-12
Denver, CO | How does it work? Seriously how does this system work. Will they inspect every file, every packet? Will they use IP logging from bit torrent clients and the ISP will identify the supposed offender?
The three strikes system would be good for curbing and and possibly stopping many people from downloading pirated works, but is the information accurate? I still think there may be privacy issues in a system like this, and to blindly approve such a thing here in the US would be foolish.
--
Don't argue! with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference. | |
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
1 edit | Re: How does it work? Same way ISPs get information in the US. Just as some US users get DMCA letters from their providers (we've all seen copies of those letters here in the forums), French users would be receiving "warning" letters from their own ISPs.
This is a much better system than the RIAA lawsuit extortion scheme they're running. | |
| | TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| Is it fully automatic? It can't be. No automatic system can accurately detect illegal downloads without false positives, they'd have to hire people to look through the logs of people who's downloading has been flagged as suspicious by the system. But this seems like it would involve a very substantial amount of work.
So how do they do it? | |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | piracy sounds like they will have a lot of work on their hands. If i download a torrent of some music cd. How can they prove i don't physically have the cd next to me that i downloaded? Seems like it could be hard to prove that my only inspecting the traffic. Also weren't they the country the sued the hell out of apple and itunes? So they don't even want a legal option. But is it illegal to download a copy of a program or song you already own (have cd).
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
|  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Run by the French Underground Might get a bit hard to find a free Wi-Fi hotspot in France eh? 
Wonder if this would ever fly with other things? Get caught growing pot in your house 3 times and lose your electricity. Get caught ripping tags off matresses at the store and force to sleep on the floor for life. 
Surprised the french citizens are putting up with this, usually they don't take kindly to others telling them what they can/can't do. | |
| |  LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: Run by the French Underground said by BabyBear:Surprised the french citizens are putting up with this, usually they don't take kindly to others telling them what they can/can't do. Just like in the US, there is no media that will present the issue objectively, and there is no politician that's both technologically knowledgeable and ballsy enough to make a stink about this on prime time news reports.
So most people see this as a law to "prevent evil pirates to steal the latest American Idol's CD", and buy into the "CD's are expensive because they get stolen a lot by pirates" stories from the major labels
Wait until the first false positives happen, and then we'll see how many react. But noone will get off their ass until sh*t hits the fan...
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Partnership of Corporate interest & Governmental Authority ... is a match made in hell.
All the worst abuses occur with such a system.... | |
| | | Try it against Spammers. It could be nicknamed Instant-Out. Oh, wait, Spammers are like cockroaches of the Internet and can't be gotten rid of. | |
|  DownTheShoreJust Say No To NewtsPremium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:10 | Instead Of Worrying About Home Internet Piracy... ...which in reality really only impacts - to some degree - the music/film industry (and come on now, are any of those people who are the egregious downloaders/uploaders really going to BUY those items anyway?), how about focusing on some broader social and economic problems in the various countries - ones in which there isn't an industry group pumping money into politician's pockets? Or take on the countries like China which turn a basic blind eye to the mass production of bootleg CD's and DVD's. Oh wait, I forgot. We mustn't upset the Chinese - they're our trading partner. But we can go after the lowly citizens of our own countries because, after all, they're the easier targets.
A little less creative bookkeeping in the recording and film industry and, voilà, there's all those profits that supposedly are being lost due to piracy.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | You can't 'mandate' morality And you certainly can't use technology to enforce it. People will just encrypt their traffic, problem solved. This, like many US laws, doesn't get to the root cause of the problem, which is that the copyright laws are broken. I for one, advocate going back to 14 years. PERIOD. IF you are the owner, and you are a PERSON (not a corporation), then you can extend it for one more 14 year period. Otherwise, it joins the collective society pool.
Hell, if we had reasonable (14 year) copyrights, 99% of the stuff I download would NOT be in violation of copyright laws. Instead, ME, like most people, just don't care. Make all the laws you want, I don't care.
Why don't I care? Because I KNOW I'm not taking any money from the artist. I don't care about corporations making money, it's not my problem. I KNOW what I want, and I KNOW how to get it. simple as that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
| At least it's better than a lawsuit.... I despise the **AA's of the world as much as anyone, but this system sure beats being served with a lawsuit for 6 figures.....at least you have a chance to change or better hide your downloading | |
| jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | so it actually lifts worries about downloading if yuou can cover your tracks. In effect by reducing the monetary punishment it promotes piracy. Genius
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
| | | interesting idea i'm interested in how this will play out. i hope if it causes more problems, they'll get rid of it in a relatively short amount of time. the only real way to see if a system like this works is to implement in reality because simulations and speculating about it can't subsitute real world results.
i'd rather see more effort put into hunting down spammers than battling piracy. both are large problems on the internet, but for the common person spam is a much larger annoyance. it used to be pretty much just email, but now forums, yahoo groups, msn groups, youtube, and so on have spam to varying degrees. | |
| | | I guess the ISPs loose So, with that system the ISP must loose customers. I bet they like that! | |
|  rudnickePremium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
kudos:1 | Depends This all depends on what they decide is illegal content. | |
|  rloconeHonor Our Heros, Our Armed ForcesPremium
join:2002-04-10
Kokomo, IN | workarounds Just like any security system there are back doors and loop holes. If this system is successful they will attempted to adopt it in other countries. So what? There is going to be a global blackball list?? That's easy just use an alias. Have all of your equipment spoof ips & macs.
have fun guys and good luck! | |
|  antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
kudos:2 | Didn't/Doesn't ISPs already do this? IIRC, Adelphia did this too? | |
|
| |
|
|
