torrentfreak.com — Yesterday from the Palace of Versailles, Nicolas Sarkozy became the first president to address Parliament in 150 years. He took the opportunity to show his determination over the proposed HADOPI legislation, promising that he will “go all the way” to enforce law on the Internet.
Jun 23, 2009 View in Crawl 4
bobthetacoJun 23, 2009
f**k, I'm going to France next week! Are we on or are we off?!
init100Jun 23, 2009
"it's merely enforcing the law."But usually, enforcing the law requires the accusations to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law before someone can be punished for a crime. The HADOPI would on the other hand act on mere accusations from the media companies. That was why it was ruled unconstitutional, and that's why such a law should not exist.
ingotanarchistJun 24, 2009
Exactly.
andygavinJun 24, 2009
By exploiting I do mean that I get the impression that there are a great many bands that have seen little reward for their creativity because they innocently signed away their rights. The record industry, as shown by what they have tried to do in the online world, isn't about fairness at all. It's about their own profit margin. I'm all for artists forming their own record labels and us all buying their music. I'm not for the record executive who feels that he's still owed money for a recording/performing songs that ought to be in the public domain. Take an extreme example "Happy Birthday" where unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it.
andygavinJun 24, 2009
I'm not for pirating music, but there has to be a better way than this. It seems to me that the music industry is trying to bring about rules to control the distribution of music. With recording equipment getting cheaper--- you can now build relatively cheaply a recording studio in your bedroom--- and distribution for almost nothing: shipping using iTunes has little manufacturing.The internet is causing middle men to be removed in many industries why not music. I personally think it's ridiculous that "rights" should be owed for songs like Happy Birthday so that if they are sung in public royalties are due. Sure pay the original artist some money for their invention. But paying royalties for 90 years? Give us all a break.What the online world, through services like iTunes have done is put a stop to me having to buy an album for one song, not being to get material from artists unless I get an anthology, not being about to get some recordings at all. Artists are glad, if the news is to believed: to be able to opt out and form their own labels and have control of their own affairs.I think it is fair to say these things would not have happened without the pirates. The Record industry resisted the early MP3 culture. Players and music distribution online have been pioneered by some of these networks. It is rare but I have seen opensource downloads also available as Torrents. Many ISPs are moving towards any P2P traffic is bad traffic under these rules. This seems crazy to me, P2P is just the transport and their are legitmate uses of the technology.There is an emphasis on the middle-man record executive here, completely disregarding the hard work and talent that has gone into the distribution technologies and has been freely given to the world. If politicians want lessons in "creativity" then look no further than a P2P protocol. More use of these technologies for downloading and sharing would be kinder on bandwidth.
whorebaneJun 24, 2009
What country are you living in? Yeah maybe the worst hackers get banned from computers, and repeat drunk drivers do get their licenses revoked, but there's no law that dictates these bans. At the very least leave these decisions to the judicators and don't legislate this piece of s**t law.
javaroastJun 24, 2009
Wouldn't make any sense at all. An ambiguous number is the worst idea ever.