What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
58 Comments
- LordPhoenyx, on 06/10/2009, -4/+54HEY THREE STRIKES LAW!!! YOUR OUT
- arctanb, on 06/10/2009, -0/+40The French have actually gained quite a lot of my respect in the last few weeks - first they prosecute Scientology, then they rip apart a proposed anti-piracy law on the basis of human rights; two things that we need more of here in the UK.
- widgetmaker, on 06/10/2009, -0/+33It's a shame that it takes a court ruling to remind law makers that what they are passing is wrong and violates fundamental principles on which a nation is built, whether something like this, British terror suspect rights, 1st amendment rights in America or examples in other countries.
Surely law makes should bare in mind things like right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty etc before they pass a law. - abbathdoom, on 06/10/2009, -0/+28God knows how much of the French tax payers money has been wasted on this ridiculous law. It shouldn't have even gone past the planning stage.
- nicktx, on 06/10/2009, -1/+24Good for the French, maybe some of that will start happening in North America one day. It's about time the corporate world takes a hint that it cannot endlessly trample civilian liberties to make a buck.
- BaphClass, on 06/11/2009, -1/+15Sarkozy's masters are not pleased.
They will demand blood. - d686, on 06/10/2009, -0/+13Without the provision to disconnect people, the law will basically just be a taxpayer funded government spam machine to harass downloaders...
- LANjackal, on 06/10/2009, -0/+12Amen :)
- ricodued, on 06/11/2009, -1/+12What about their out?
- Zomgondo, on 06/11/2009, -1/+12There's a saying in France: "In France, the government fears its citizens, while in the US, the citizens fear their government."
It's quite true. Any time the French government decides to impose an unpopular law on the people, the people decide they don't need to work any more until the government changes its mind... which it inevitably does.
Think about this the next time you want to bash the French. Vive la libre! - rpapi100, on 06/11/2009, -0/+8Considering pretty much every parliament in the world that's not a totalitarian facade has free legal council for representatives/deputies/parliamentarians (including that of France) in addition to whatever legal council they can obtain trough other means (party, non-profit legal counciling orgs, etc.),
Considering any legal adviser worth his salt would of seen major problems with this laws to begin with (try replacing Internet connection with newspaper, television or radio for a try),
Considering the French deputies backing this law were therefore most certainly aware of it's legal fragility (via their legal councilmen and moreover the EU ruling),
I think the whole thing was a ploy to begin with.
I'm guessing something to the tune of: some French deputies we're pushed by industry lobbying to do ''something'' about e-piracy with the upcoming (at the time) piracy ruling on The Pirate Bay as somesort of PR backup plan to scare the masses and the politicians knowing their financial backing was at stake made a half-assed attempt to look like they cared.
People must keep in mind that in France, laws are much harder to strike down because they have to pass a constitutional test BEFORE being put into effect. As such ''wasting'' taxpayers money on stupid (& excessively rigid) laws for frivolous or flavour-of-the-week '' serious issues'' to please the masses or the special interests is common practise. A sad example of this in many democracies is environmental laws in particular and social-economic rights in general...
Anyway, my 2 cents. - nextekcarl, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7Poster is correct. It is a shame such things are necessary at all. They didn't say it is a shame that it was used, but that it had to be used in the first place as it clearly wasn't legal.
- sulthernao, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7If this occurred in America, it would be an "activist judge". Legislating from the bench, sheesh.....
- Vedlen, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7*Vive ^^*
- svendm, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6Freedom of Speech is NOT a privilege. It's an INALIENABLE human right. You cannot lose your right to Freedom of Speech. If it were legal and fine to ban a person from being allowed to publish what he's written, that's censorship and the opposite of freedom of speech.
Nobody has proposed, or would dare propose, that if somebody plagiarized some written text, that that person would be banned from _writing_ for a year. Nobody's ever proposed that if you perform a song without copyright permission, that you'd be banned from singing publicly. Yet that's _exactly_ what this law did, only for a different medium - the internet.
This ISN'T about ISPs shutting people off - they have the right to refuse service to whoever they want- this is about the GOVERNMENT telling ISPs they're not allowed to provide you with service. See the difference? - Animan351, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6French will make more of a stand than the land of the free ( U.S )
Oh well, I just bought a PVN for my stuff I want kept private. - Gndoab, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5it's a shame? that is exactly why the court system exists in it's present form. I think it's brilliant that there are checks and balances in government.
- BertEatsDirt, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5You're*
- brickbat, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5Man I love the idea that the laws are reviewed by the constitutional council before coming into effect. Imagine what would have happened to the Patriot Act in that scenario. Although I guess the question always is who sits on the constitutional council?
- blackjack75, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5That's still a punishment, which is unjust if applied only when someone *accuses* you three time without due trial.
What were you hoping for? The chair? - Jovian84, on 06/11/2009, -3/+7VIVA LA FRANCE!
- svendm, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4Good to hear, even though I was expecting this. Legal experts in France have been taking a crap all over this law for weeks now.
- pigfister, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4innocent until proven guilty, & civil is not criminal; these concepts appear to be lost in the USA favouring corporate greed.
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - Ohnodonho, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4The Three Strikes Laws are out? Where were they?
I ***** hate english... - damack, on 06/11/2009, -0/+3The only reason this illlegal "law" was proposed was because that moron Nicolas Sarkozy is the leader of France and his ex-hooker of a wife is a musician.
It has no relevancy to anybody in France and this court case has been paid for by the tax payers because of some shrimp dick moron and his trophy wife pressuring him.
The fact that this can get to court at the whim of an asswipe really goes to show how the power structure in western governments works.
It's a shame people haven't stood up to this. Can't we tell when we're being ***** on? - Pinkertinkle, on 06/11/2009, -0/+3foiled again, riaa?
- LordPhoenyx, on 06/11/2009, -0/+3Dammit! I cant believe I did it again.
- ialan2, on 06/11/2009, -0/+3should've said
THREE STRIKES LAWS OUT - inactive, on 06/11/2009, -0/+3Remember kids the RIAA says, copyrights are more important than Human Rights
- kamisama, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2yay for France
- Animan351, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2LOL. That was a bit of a typo, I meant VPN ( virtual private network ) But it's great that there's a meaning for PVN too. Albeit a messed up one.
- mabsark, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2No, the ISP's just decided that they would cut off paying customers for the fun of it.
- r00fus, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2rpapi:
People must keep in mind that in France, laws are much harder to strike down because they have to pass a constitutional test BEFORE being put into effect.
Jeebus! I wish we had that kind of sanity check here. Unfortunately it's just too logical. - r00fus, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2True, but they still elected that asswipe Sarkozy.
- jman583, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1How the regular three strikes law is BS:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_5-most-popula ... (it's #4) - GraceHead, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1savages?
- JantjePietje, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1of new born babies!
- mediumofmeaning, on 09/08/2009, -0/+1salvages?
- skiingpowder10, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1Take that Sarkozy baby !!!
- groumpf, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1We would probably not work anyway... We'd invite him in for a drink all the time.
- Frostek, on 06/11/2009, -1/+2I find amusing that the Americans didn't have the willpower to boycott French Fries.
Because they'd have to stop stuffing their faces with them.
Far easier to rename them, hmmm? - mabsark, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1Remember kids, Mr Hankey says a *****'s rights are more important than the RIAAs rights.
- zephyear, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1i love how i get dugg down by libertarians for this
hey you know who opposed the bill in the vote? the socialists and the communists - r00fus, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1I hope you know what PVN stands for (read the last entry in the disambiguation):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PVN - Zomgondo, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1Sometimes I think they elect the person most likely to make them strike... I don't think they'd know what to do if they had a leader who did what they wanted all the time.
- BrownieMix, on 06/11/2009, -0/+0Follow France's example United States....
- GovernmentsGun, on 06/11/2009, -1/+1If you try to publish your words on paper, you can write all you want. It does not, by it's function, involve anyone else as long as you own the paper. Access to the internet, by it's function, involves other people's time and effort. It cannot be a right then.
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -1/+1Wait, are they forcing the ISP's to cut you off?.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is